^JSUDNV-SOl^       ^ajAINflJWV 


5MMINIVER% 


I 


^10S-ANCEI% 


^OfCAUFOftij^ 

s 


■^/JiUAWfli\\v^       "^ommy^ 


%OJI1V3JO'^ 


^OFCAllfOR^ 


>- 

ec. 

< 


^HIBRARYC 


iVKJ/A 


^lOSANCEl^f^ 
f  >^-N — .^ 


so 

?  —    --^ 


"^^mrn^i^ 


<ril30NVSO#       %a3AlNIl'3\V^ 


JcOF'CAUFOftjk.       <tOFCMiF0%         AMFUNIVERS/a       ^lOS-ANCn/jo. 


i    ^f^ 


^ 


DrgifeedTby  the'  Interftet^rcffivd**^  | 


s  ^ 


in  2008  with  funding  from 


b^ 


.  ^\  \  E    %  ^     IVIicrosoft  Corporation  ^^iir^  ^'<. 

^omwr^     ^omm]:W      '^'^ohvsov^^""     '^■^i^mmm 


JS«UNIVER%. 


^lOSANCFl£r^ 


''^3Nvsoi^^     "^/seuNd-jiw^      '^ojim-jo^    ^ojiwd-^o'^ 


^\\BNIVER,.,„ 


f 


^lOSANC£l/j^ 


^OFCAllfORi^ 

C!5  =3 


v^. 


^.OFCAllfW.^^ 


%a3AlNa•}V^        "^^JAavaan-^      ^^Aavaani^^ 


ii:' 


^tUBRARYQ^.^      A^^t•UBRARYa/^^        ^5MfUNIVER%.       ^-lOSANCFlfX;^  <5^M 

http://www.archive.org/cietails/essentialsofarguOOston    § 


h 


JKl  i 


I      ti:  (  ft  U 53 


'^.^OJIIVDJO'^      '^-^OJIIVDJO^^  ^TiiJONVSOV^^ 


^lOSANCflfx> 


//ia3MNn-3Wv 


^OFCAIIFO^ 


^OFCAUFO/?/^ 


^<?Aaviiaii#      ^(?A8vaan-^^ 


^  —  - 

>- 


'^Xil33NVS01^ 


5  1  <r-^ 


^OF-CAllFOft^ 


i?Aavaani;*^ 


AMEUNIVERy/A 


^•lOSANCElfx^ 

o 


^JIWD-JO"^         <f3l3DNVS01^        ■%a3MNfl-3\\V^ 


,^WEUNIVER5'/A 


^lOSAKCEier>. 
o 


^TiUONVSOl^ 


'%a3MNn-3V^^ 


^OFCAIIFO% 


^lOSANCEl^^ 


-i^^-UBRARYQc^ 
^  1   </— ^  ^ 


.\«EIINIVERS/A 
^  —  - 


%a3AiNn-3Viv*'      \oimi^'^    ^^^ojnvD-jo'^      "^j^udnvsoi^ 


^lOSANCElfju 


^OFCAIIFO% 


aOFCAIIFOI?^ 


"^/JiiaAiNiiswv^       ^<?Aavjian-^^      ^^Aavaaii-^'^ 


^\\\EUNIVER% 


%13DKVS01^ 


^lUBRARYO^^        <?J^EIINIVER%      ^lOSANCEl^^ 


% 


^ 


^7' 


ESSENTIALS  OF  ARGUMENT 


BY 

ARTHUR  PARKER  STONE,  A.B.,  LL.B. 

INSTRUCTOR  IN  ENGLISH  IN  HARVARD  UNIVERSITY 

AND 

STEWART  LEE  GARRISON,  A.B. 

INSTRUCTOR  IN  PUBLIC  SPEAKING  AND   ENGLISH  IN 
WORCESTER  ACADEMY 


NEW  YORK 

HENRY  HOLT  AND  COMPANY 

1916 


COPTBIOHT,  1916 
BT 

HENRY  HOLT  AND  COMPANY 


cry 


^   ^  TU 


H~ 


%g  tio 


CD 


-0 


i 


/I 


X 

U 


o 


« 


9)61  e 


C- 


DEDICATED 


ffieorge  fierce  33aker 

J  PROFESSOR  OF  ENGLISH  IN  HARVARD  UNIVERSITY 

IN  RECOGNITION  OF 
THE  DEBT  THAT  THE  AUTHORS  IN  COMMON 

WITH  ALL  TEACHERS  OF  ARGUMENT 

OWE  TO  HIM  FOR  HIS  PIONEER  WORK  IN  THE 

CONSTRUCTIVE  TEACHING  OF  THIS  SUBJECT 


PREFACE 

A  DOWN-EAST  farmer  whose  given  name  was  Aminadab 
was  wont  to  tell  his  friends  that  he  was  the  tenth  son  of 
his  parents,  and  that  all  the  good  names  had  been  used 
up  when  they  got  down  to  him.  We  are  not  apologizing 
for  the  title  of  this  book,  but  certain  it  is  that  the  number 
of  books  written  on  this  subject  is  legion.  It  is  true  that 
some  of  these  come  to  our  attention  at  the  present  time 
merely  as  curiosities,  but  many  have  survived  and  are 
popular  on  account  of  admirable  qualities.  Why,  then, 
should  there  be  a  new  text-book? 

It  may  be  that  the  controlling  reason  is  the  desire  which 
comes  to  every  teacher  to  put  his  particular  theories  into 
print.  Yet  the  authors  of  this  work  believe  that  their 
book  has  another  reason  for  existence.  If  we  thought  that 
we  had  some  peculiar  hobbies  or  novel  methods  of  instruc- 
tion, it  would  indeed  be  doubtful  if  anything  was  being 
added  to  the  literature  of  the  subject.  In  fact  the  criti- 
cism that  we  find,  as  teachers,  of  the  text-books  which 
have  been  offered  to  us  is  that  they  seem  to  attempt  to 
produce  something  new  in  the  way  of  teaching  argumen- 
tation. We  believe  that  it  is  extremely  improbable  that 
anyone  in  this  twentieth  century  will  discover  new  prin- 
ciples of  dealing  with  this  subject,  the  teaching  of  which 
was  an  old  story  long  before  the  Christian  era.  Our  first 
endeavor,  therefore,  has  been  to  go  back  to  the  simpler 
forms  of  instruction,  and  to  produce  a  book  which  could  be 


vi  PREFACE 

used  by  teachers  and  pupils  who  were  content  to  follow  the 
ordinary  principles  of  rhetoric.  Argument  is  not  a  hybrid 
or  freak  form  of  composition  in  which  analysis,  evidence, 
and  reasoning  are  the  only  things  to  be  considered.  It 
has  been  customary,  it  must  be  admitted,  for  most  text- 
books to  devote  a  few  pages  to  a  discussion  of  the  principles 
of  style.  The  student,  however,  very  often  receives  the  im- 
pression that  in  argument  the  rules  which  govern  the  other 
forms  of  composition  are  of  minor  importance.  This  is  very 
far  from  the  truth,  and  we  have  included  chapters  on  the 
qualities  of  style  with  some  attempt  to  apply  the  prin- 
ciples specifically  to  argument.  There  is,  however,  noth- 
ing new  in  these  chapters;  they  aim  to  be  merely  a  sum- 
mary of  the  best  thought  upon  the  subject  of  composition. 
If,  therefore,  within  these  pages  there  seems  to  the  reader 
to  be  in  any  place  a  novel  idea,  we  would  beg  that  it  be  first 
carefully  examined  to  see  if  it  is  not  an  old  principle  in  new 
dress,  and  if  after  due  consideration  it  turns  out  to  be  a 
genuine  novelty,  we  are  content  to  have  it  discarded  as 
probably  untrue. 

The  second  criticism  which  we  think  fairly  attaches  to 
many  of  the  existing  text-books  is  that  they  go  into  the 
subject  too  much  in  detail.  They  are  exhaustive  treatises 
complicated  by  numerous  classical  illustrations  which, 
as  we  have  discovered,  comparatively  few  of  the  pupils 
are  inclined  to  read.  These  books  attempt  to  teach  too 
much.  Some  are  bound  down  by  a  too  rigid  adherence 
to  the  artificial  phraseology  of  the  rules  of  logic  and 
rhetoric,  while  some  that  escape  this  criticism  seem  to 
be  merely  manuals  for  preparing  students  for  collegiate 
debates.  We  believe  that  it  is  possible  to  include  the 
general  principles   which   underlie  the   subject   without 


PREFACE  vii 

attempting  to  be  exhaustive  or  to  cover  all  contingencies. 
The  successful  text-book  is  not  an  epitome  but  a  book 
which  inspires  and  suggests.  A  compendium  of  useful 
information  may  be  good  for  reference,  but  ^sop's  Fables 
are  better  for  teaching  purposes.  And  Professor  Wendell 
tells  us  that  the  younger  Dumas  explained  the  appeal  of 
his  style  with  the  words:  "'II  y  a  fier  dessous,' — there  is  no 
end  of  it  out  of  sight."  We  have  therefore  deliberately 
included  only  the  fundamental  principles  on  each  topic; 
we  have  purposely  made  our  illustrations  suggestive 
rather  than  comprehensive,  and  unhke  the  examples  to  be 
found  in  a  college  argument  for  the  very  reason  that  to 
translate  them  will  require  an  actual  mental  effort  on  the 
part  of  the  student. 

As  the  wording  which  is  employed  is  more  or  less  a 
paraphrase  of  lectures  which  the  authors  have  given  to 
classes  in  school  and  college,  it  has  been  inevitable  that  the 
personal  relation  between  teacher  and  student  should 
obtrude  itself  in  the  text.  If  we  use  too  often  the  familiar 
and  informal  style  of  the  class  room  the  explanation  hes 
in  the  fact  that  we  have  hoped  the  book  will  be  serviceable 
to  a  class.  After  all  it  seems  that  in  an  endeavor  to  teach 
this  subject  in  particular,  directness  is  necessary  even  if 
some  of  the  more  severe  rules  of  rhetoric  suffer.  To  those 
who  would  apply  our  own  advice  to  our  own  confusion 
we  can  only  say  with  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  "Do  as  I  say, 
not  do  as  I  do." 

Taken  as  a  whole,  the  book  should  serve  as  the  founda- 
tion for  an  extended  course  in  argument.  We  have  had 
in  mind,  however,  the  fact  that  many  schools  and  colleges 
for  one  reason  or  another  are  obliged  to  consider  this  sub- 
ject in  a  somewhat  limited  time.    Teachers  who  feel  that 


viii  PREFACE 

the  book  is  too  expanded  for  their  purposes  are  recom- 
mended to  omit  from  the  consideration  of  their  classes 
Chapters  I,  VII,  VIII,  X,  XI,  XII,  XIV,  and  XV.  The 
remainder  of  the  book  will,  it  is  believed,  prove  available 
for  a  less  extended  com*se. 

Special  attention  is  called  to  the  chapters  on  deUvery 
and  debating.  While  somewhat  out  of  place  in  a  book 
which  intends  to  treat  only  the  construction  of  an  argu- 
ment, they  are  inserted  out  of  deference  to  those  who  are 
obliged  to  teach  dehvery  and  construction  at  one  and  the 
same  time.  Each  of  these  chapters  easily  could  be  am- 
plified into  a  book  in  itself.  The  only  merit  that  is 
claimed  for  them  is  that  they  are  not  theoretical,  but  are 
the  practical  results  which  have  been  obtained  by  one 
of  the  authors  not  only  in  teaching  the  subject,  but 
also  in  practicing  it  in  more  than  one  of  its  varied 
forms. 

It  is  always  difficult  to  say  how  much  of  our  thought  is 
our  own  and  how  much  is  suggested  by  others.  We  have 
endeavored  when  conscious  of  borrowing  to  make  due 
acknowledgment.  If,  however,  any  predecessor  in  this 
field  finds  in  these  pages  his  own  ideas  whether  expressed 
in  his  words  or  in  ours,  we  can  only  plead  guilty  of  uncon- 
scious plagiarism  and  urge  him  to  take  satisfaction  in 
thinking  that  after  all  he  thought  of  it  first.  How  much 
we  owe  to  these  others  we  probably  do  not  appreciate. 
We  wish,  however,  in  addition  to  acknowledging  our  in- 
debtedness to  Professor  Baker,  which  we  recognize  in 
another  place,  to  express  our  thanks  to  Mr.  William  T. 
Gunraj  for  work  which  appears  in  the  appendix,  and  to 
Professor  Albert  R.  Chandler  of  Ohio  State  University  for 
valuable  suggestions  on  "Reasoning"  and  "Fallacies." 


PREFACE  ix 

This  book,  then,  is  offered  to  the  public  at  its  face  value. 
It  has  been  written  after  some  years  of  experiment  in 
teaching  and  practice.  We  believe  that  it  contains  the 
essential  principles  which  underlie  the  teaching  of  argu- 
ment presented  in  a  form  and  manner  not  difficult  to 
understand. 

A.  P.  S. 
S.  L.  G. 


CONTENTS 

STRUCTURE 
Chapter  page 

I.  Argument 1 

II.  The  Subject 10 

III.  Explanation 28 

IV.  The  Main  Issues 38 

V.  The  Brief 51 

SUBSTANCE 

VI.  Evidence 69 

VII.  Reasoning 99 

VIII.  Fallacies 115 

IX.  Persuasion 129 

FORM 

X.  Clearness 142 

XI.  Force 154 

XII.  Beauty 165 

XIII.  Writing  the  Argument 179 

PRACTICE 

XIV.  Delivery 203 

XV.  Debating 222 

Subjects    of    Harvard- Yale-Princeton    Intercolle- 
giate Debates 249 

APPENDIX 

Specimen  Argument:   "Should  Ireland   have   Home 
Rule" 

Authors'  Note 255 

Brief 257 

Argument  ..,,,,,, 267 


xii  CONTENTS 

Material  for  Briefing:  page 

Robespierre,  "Against  Capital  Punishment".  .     297 
"The  Mousetrap  Quotation" 302 

Exercises 307 

IiTOEx 327 


ESSENTIALS   OF  ARGUMENT 


CHAPTER  I 

ARGUMENT 

"Who  is  this  that  darkeneth  counsel  by  words  without 

knowledge?"     With  the  above  question,  according  to  the 

Old  Testament,  begins  the  record  in  the 

What 
Book  of  Job  of  what  may  perhaps  be  called    argument  is 

the  first  recorded  debate  in  history.  A 
writer  on  the  subject  of  argument  can  find  no  better  text 
than  this,  for  the  whole  purpose  of  his  writing  must  be 
to  prevent  men  from  darkening  counsel  by  mere  words. 
An  argument  is  the  endeavor  to  make  the  thoughts  of  other 
people  conform  to  our  own.  While  it  may  be  possible  to 
mislead  the  thoughts  of  men  by  means  of  empty  words,  any 
advantage  gained  in  this  way  can  be  only  temporary. 
Man's  thought  is  affected  finally  not  by  words,  but 
by  knowledge.  The  purpose  of  courses  in  argument 
in  our  schools  and  colleges,  therefore,  should  be  not 
so  much  to  stimulate  a  flow  of  speech  as  it  should  be 
to  add  to  it  that  which  makes  it  effective,  knowledge 
and  understanding.  It  is  the  purpose  of  this  book, 
therefore,  to  stimulate  the  art  of  adding  knowledge  to 
words  in  order  that  the  counsel  given  may  not  be  dark- 
ened. It  is  worth  while  undoubtedly  to  teach  men  to 
improve  their  physical  speech  and  to  improve  their  man- 
ner of  deUvery.    We  are  all  glad  to  hear  a  man  who  clothes 

1 


2  STRUCTURE 

his  thought  in  graceful  language  and  delivers  it  pleasingly, 
but  no  matter  how  pleasing  the  outward  form  may  be, 
if  he  has  not  a  thought  to  express,  he  makes  but  little 
impression.  The  way  to  study  argument  is,  first,  to  learn 
how  to  think,  then  to  learn  how  to  express  the  thought  in 
good  English,  and  finally  to  learn  how  to  deliver  the 
thought  in  as  pleasing  a  manner  as  possible.  To  think, 
to  write,  and  then  to  speak  is  the  logical  order  in  which 
argument  should  be  developed.  Too  often  we  see  those 
who  invert  this  order,  meriting  the  denunciation  of  the 
Lord  as  expressed  above;  they  literally  darken  counsel 
by  words  without  knowledge. 

Too  many  people,  moreover,  think  argument  is  merely 
a  taking  of  opposite  sides,  or  the  act  of  disputing 
Argument  ^^  quarreUng.  They  forget  that  its  true 
not  conten-  purpose  is  to  make  those  who  disagree 
tiousness  ^-^j^  ^^^  change  their  minds.  There  is 
a  certain  type  of  mind  that  invariably  disputes  every- 
thing that  is  said.  It  was  said  of  the  old  common-law 
pleadings  that  if  a  man  accidentally  in  his  plea  spoke  of 
the  sunrise,  his  opponent  would  call  upon  him  lo  prove 
not  only  that  the  sun  had  risen,  but  also  that  there  was  a 
sun.  People  who  take  the  opposite  view  of  everything 
that  they  hear  sometimes  flatter  themselves  that  they 
are  mighty  in  argument.  Many  a  fond  mother  has  des- 
tined a  child  for  the  ministry  or  the  bar  because  he  seemed 
to  have  the  faculty  of  disputing  readily.  Generally  such 
children  need  physical  correction  and  lessons  in  good 
maimers  rather  than  encouragement  in  talking.  Argu- 
ment is  not  dispute  or  contention.  The  student  who  takes 
it  up  with  the  idea  that  it  is  a  mere  competition  with  his 
fellows  and  the  winner  is  he  who  proves  himself  to  be  the 


ARGUMENT  3 

better  man,  cannot  too  early  in  his  study  dismiss  such 
an  idea  from  his  mind.  Student  debating  is  perhaps 
responsible  for  a  feeling  that  the  purpose  of  argument 
and  of  courses  in  argument  is  to  enable  the  students  to 
win  this  game  which  they  have  evolved  from  the  oldest 
of  the  arts.  Nothing  is  further  from  the  truth.  A  debat- 
ing coach  of  some  prominence  was  accustomed  to  tell 
his  teams  to  forget  that  they  must  make  good  speeches, 
and  to  forget  even  that  they  must  convince  the  judges  that 
they  were  efficient  debaters,  but  to  remember  that  they 
must  convince  those  same  judges  that  the  proposition  for 
which  they  stood  was  right.  The  advice  was  good.  In 
argument  the  end  and  aim  of  all  that  is  done  is  to  pro- 
duce in  the  mind  of  another  person  a  belief  that  the 
theory  asserted  is  true.  Everything  that  tends  to  do 
that  is  good.  Everything  that  does  not  tend  to  that  end 
is  useless,  and  in  argument  anything  that  is  useless  is  bad. 
Contentiousness  is  the  term  that  is  applied  to  that  method 
of  discussion  where  the  object  is  not  to  convince,  but  to 
dispute.  As  might  be  expected,  it  flourishes  among  the 
uneducated  and  the  immature.  Children  quarrel  with 
each  other,  ending  up  with  a  "'Tis"  and  '"Taint"  form 
of  controversy  which  frequently  degenerates  into  physical 
conflict.  Two  cabmen  will  obstruct  traffic  while  they 
engage  in  a  wordy  warfare  which  is  as  useless  as  it  is  ve- 
hement, and  afterwards  they  will  take  great  pleasure  in 
retelling  to  an  admiring  audience  the  bright  things  that 
they  either  did  say  or  would  have  said  if  they  had 
thought  of  them.  From  these  primitive  contenders 
to  the  man  who  thinks  he  shows  his  erudition  by 
disputing  even  the  most  casual  statement  is  but  a  step. 
The  vital  fault  of  all  such  people  is  that  they  are  seek- 


4  STRUCTURE 

ing  approbation  and  are  not  trying  to  establish  the 
truth.  Even  if  we  are  mistaken  in  our  beUef,  an  hon- 
est endeavor  to  establish  this  belief  is  worth  while, 
but  to  dispute  for  the  sake  of  disputing  is  to  waste  our 
time.  While  argument  is  a  recognized  form  of  literary- 
expression,  contentiousness  is  never  knowingly  taught  by 
anyone. 

Argument  is  the  most  complex  form  of  English  composi- 
tion.    Without  raising  the  question  as  to  whether  it  is  a 

higher  form  than  description,  narration,  or 
of  argument    exposition,  it  is  certainly  true  that  from  its 

very  nature  it  gives  the  student  more  work 
to  do.  In  description  the  keynote  is  the  drawing  of  a 
verbal  picture  of  a  physical  object;  in  narration  the  key- 
note is  the  telling  of  a  story;  in  exposition  the  keynote 
is  the  explaining  of  a  method,  plan,  or  theory;  but  in 
argument  we  have  a  twofold  task.  In  the  other  three  it 
is  sufficient  if  our  hearer  sees  our  verbal  picture,  hears 
our  story,  or  understands  our  plan.  In  argument  he 
must  not  only  see,  hear,  and  understand,  but  he  must 
also  believe.  A  student  may  describe  a  certain  type  of 
automobile  engine,  or  he  may  tell  us  the  story  of  the 
execution  of  Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,  or  he  may  explain  to 
us  the  Central  Reserve  Banking  Act;  but  in  argument  he 
must  also  make  us  believe  that  his  type  of  engine  is  best, 
that  the  Queen  was  justly  executed,  or  that  the  banking 
act  is  advantageous.  Any  of  the  other  forms  of  literary 
expression  may  achieve  its  full  purpose  and  still  leave  the 
minds  of  our  hearers  as  passive  as  before  we  spoke.  Argu- 
ment, however,  cannot  stop  there.  From  its  nature  it 
must  produce  agreement  in  the  minds  of  our  hearers,  or 
it  has  failed  of  its  purpose. 


ARGUMENT  5 

We  must  next  consider  how  the  minds  of  men  are  af- 
fected.   Why  is  it  that  some  speakers  produce  results  while 
others  do  not?     A  little  thought  shows  us     Conviction 
that  there  are  two  ways  of  approaching  the    and  per- 
mind.    We  believe  a  man  because  he  either    ^"*^^°° 
convinces  or  persuades  us  that  what  he  says  is  true.    As  a 
matter  of  fact  in  nearly  every  argument  we  find  these  two 
impressions  are  being  produced  upon  our  minds.    When 
you  wish  to  instruct  a  child  that  two  and  two  make  four, 
you  will  perhaps  take  two  of  his  blocks,  place  them  oppo- 
site two  others,  and  let  him  count  the  result.    It  makes 
no  difference  who  arranges  the  blocks  for  him,  his  parents, 
his  teacher,  or  a  stranger.      He  believes  you  after  he  has 
counted   because  he  has  seen.     We  may  call  this  pure 
conviction.     But  when  the  same  child's  mother  wishes 
to  show  him  that  he  should  not  be  afraid  in  the  dark  she 
does  not  spend  as  much  time  upon  explaining  the  theory 
of  the  absence  of  Ught,  if  she  is  a  wise  mother,  as  she  does 
in  comforting  and  sympathizing  until  his  little  doubts 
disappear  and  he  knows  that  everything  is  right.    This  is 
persuasion. 

While  both  conviction  and  persuasion  are  found  in 

every  good  argument,  and  while  they  are  distinct  methods 

of  approaching  the  mind,  they  are  not  or-    -,      .  ,. 
,.       .,    .        ,  ^,  ,    ,     Conviction 

dmarily  found  apart.  They  are  compounded,    and  persua- 

as  it  were,  chemically  rather  than  physically,  ^^^^  closely 
Both  hydrogen  and  oxygen  are  distinct 
forms  of  matter,  and  we  recognize  their  existence  in  water, 
but  it  is  in  a  combination  in  which  they  cannot  be  dis- 
tinguished. So  conviction  and  persuasion,  although  we 
recognize  each  when  we  find  it,  are  indissolubly  combined 
in  a  good  argument.    The  methods  of  producing  convic- 


6  STRUCTURE 

tion  and  persuasion,  however,  will  be  studied  separately 
for  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  two  processes  more  dissimilar 
than  these  two  methods  of  influencing  human  thought. 
Conviction  rigidly  excludes  from  consideration  anything 
that  is  emotional  in  its  nature.  At  first  thought  it  would 
seem  as  if  there  was  something  unworthy  in  any  other 
means  of  producing  belief.  If  man  is  a  rational  being, 
why  should  we  ever  appeal  to  anything  but  his  reason? 
A  dearly  bought  experience,  however,  has  taught  most  of 
us  that  we  have  erred  perhaps  as  frequently  when  logic 
has  had  full  sway  as  when  it  has  not.  If  the  men  of  olden 
times  allowed  their  prejudices  and  their  passions  to  per- 
suade them  into  an  unfounded  belief  in  witchcraft,  it  was 
the  unfailing  evidence  of  their  senses  and  the  logical  teach- 
ing of  history,  as  they  understood  it,  which  convinced 
them  that  the  world  was  flat.  No  emotion  contributed  to 
the  theory  of  the  flat  earth,  and  the  men  of  science  for 
centuries  proved  its  flatness  by  the  coldest  reasoning.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  even  a  false  logic 
could  ever  have  justified  the  atrocities  committed  under 
the  universal  delusion  of  witchcraft.  Both  these  views, 
one  the  product  of  conviction  and  the  other  of  persuasion, 
were  wrong,  j^et  both  were  firmly  believed.  Perhaps  if 
those  eminent  logicians  who  knew  that  the  earth  was 
flat  had  used  their  logic  less  and  their  imaginations  more, 
the  error  would  have  been  discovered  earlier,  and  perhaps 
if  the  eminent  theologians  had  modified  their  passions 
and  their  prejudices  with  a  little  common  sense,  a  cruel 
error  would  have  disappeared  long  before  it  did.  Con- 
viction and  persuasion,  therefore,  must  go  hand  in  hand 
in  any  effort  to  produce  belief,  and  a  student  who  neglects 
either  dehberately  sacrifices  half  his  power  of  effective 


ARGUMENT  7 

argument.  With  the  full  reahzation  then  that  the  process 
of  logical  conviction  is  but  half  the  battle,  let  us  pay  at- 
tention to  that  process  of  producing  belief  in  the  minds 
of  others  by  an  appeal  solely  to  human  reasoning. 

An  argument  consists  of  three  parts  which  we  may  call 
the  Introduction,  the  Proof,  and  the  Conclusion.    A  little 

thought  shows  us  that  this  division  is  neces- 

,  -,    ■         .       1      r\  •^  The  parts  of 

sary  because  it  is  natural.     Our  evidence   ^^  argument 

may  be  ever  so  good  and  yet  produce  no 
effect  if  stated  baldly  without  any  preceding  explanation. 
Before  our  hearers  can  accept  a  statement  of  fact  as  proof 
of  anything,  they  surely  must  know  the  purpose  for  which 
the  fact  is  offered.  If  they  do  not  know  what  it  is  intended 
to  prove,  it  may  interest  them  but  it  certainly  cannot  con- 
vince them  that  a  proposition  of  which  they  have  never 
heard  is  true.  It  is  just  as  essential  to  tell  the  audience 
what  we  are  talking  about  as  it  is  for  the  student  who 
proves  a  problem  in  geometry  first  to  write  his  problem, 
then  to  set  down  his  proof,  and  finally  to  conclude  with  the 
Q.  E.  D.  which  shows  that  he  has  done  that  which  he  set 
out  to  do. 

The  introduction,  then,  is  that  part  of  the  argument  in 
which  we  explain  to  our  audience  that  which  we  intend 
to  prove.     It  is  naturally  expository  in  its 
nature,  and  the  style  of  composition  in  the    (juction 
introduction   is   that   of    exposition  rather 
than  that  of  argument.    A  student  about  to  write  an  argu- 
ment is  not  unlike  a  woodsman  going  to  the  forest  to 
cut  down  a  tree.    He  can  seldom  march  up  to  the  tree 
and  without  any  anticipation  strike  into  it  with  his  axe. 
He  must  first  observe  its  position,  calculate  the  direction 
in  which  it  will  fall,  see  if  there  is  any  other  tree  in  which 


8  STRUCTURE 

it  may  lodge,  and  perhaps  clear  away  the  underbrush  that 
surrounds  it  so  that  he  may  get  a  good  place  to  stand  and 
a  clear  swing  for  his  axe.  It  may  be  considerable  time 
before  he  is  ready  to  begin  the  actual  work  of  felling  his 
tree.  So  the  student  of  argument  must  spend  considerable 
time  and  space  in  telling  us  what  he  is  going  to  do  in 
order  that  we  may  thoroughly  understand  his  purpose 
before  he  starts  in  upon  his  proof. 

The  proof  is  that  part  of  the  argument  which  actually 
produces  conviction.  It  consists  of  the  presentation  of 
^,  ,      facts  and  the  reasoning  from  those  facts  to 

the  results  which  lead  up  to  the  establish- 
ment of  our  proposition.  To  continue  the  simile  of  the 
woodsman,  it  begins  when  the  first  blow  is  struck,  and 
ends  when  the  tree  has  fallen.  It  probably  comprises  the 
bulk  of  the  argument  although  frequently  a  proper  intro- 
duction will  shorten  the  proof  considerably.  The  legal 
adage,  "A  case  well  stated  is  half  proven,"  is  as  true  in 
argument  as  it  is  in  law.  Still  we  may  reasonably  ex- 
pect that  in  volume  at  any  rate  the  proof  will  be  the 
principal  part  of  our  argument. 

As  an  introduction  is  necessary  to  show  what  we  intend 
to  do,  so  a  conclusion  is  necessary  to  show  that  we  have 

done  it.  The  Q.  E.  D.  of  the  geometrical 
g^QQ  proposition  is  not  a  meaningless  form.    The 

mind  demands  some  final  closing  of  an  argu- 
ment which  makes  the  conclusion  more  than  a  mere  mat- 
ter of  form.  If,  after  we  have  presented  our  last  fact  and 
drawn  our  last  inference  from  it,  we  leave  the  subject, 
there  is  an  abruptness  which  is  displeasing  to  our  hearers. 
The  argument  becomes  far  more  effective  if  briefly  but 
nevertheless  logically  we  review  what  we  have  done,  and 


ARGUMENT  9 

show  them  that  our  proof  has  been  after  all  a  logical  state- 
ment leading  back  to  the  proposition  with  which  we 
started. 

An  argument  then  in  substance  as  well  as  in  form  is  the 
statement  of  a  theory,  the  proving  that  it  is  true,  and  its 
restatement  as  an  established  fact. 


CHAPTER  II 
THE  SUBJECT 

The  schoolboy  who  has  to  write  a  composition,  too  often 
prepares  himself  for  the  task  about  as  follows : 

He  first  sees  that  a  fresh  pen  is  inserted  in  the  pen- 
holder; then   possibly  he  fills  the  inkstand.      Next   he 
obtains  a  number  of  sheets  of  smooth  white 
analysis  paper,  and  in  his  very  best  handwriting  he 

writes  the  subject  of  his  composition  at  the 
top  of  the  first  page.  Having  thus  pledged  himself  to  the 
momentous  discussion  of  the  cause  of  Rome's  decay,  or 
some  other  equally  interesting  topic,  he  stops,  and  with  a 
mind  as  vacant  as  the  paper  before  him,  he  begins  to  think. 
It  is  at  this  point  that  he  really  begins  his  argument.  The 
trouble,  however,  with  the  schoolboy  is  that  he  does  not 
keep  on  thinking  long  enough.  He  is  trying  to  think  of 
words  and  sentences  when  he  should  be  trying  to  think  of 
ideas.  Yet  the  schoolboy  is  not  alone  in  his  error.  Fre- 
quently in  argumentative  composition  we  pay  too  much  at- 
tention to  the  way  we  clothe  a  thought  and  too  little  to  the 
thought  itself.  A  course  in  argument,  if  you  trust  to  the 
catalogues  and  announcements  of  our  schools  and  universi- 
ties, is  a  course  in  English  composition  either  written  or 
oral  as  each  particular  institution  decides  from  time  to 
time.  A  course  in  argument  really  is  a  course  in  psychol- 
ogy, in  logic,  in  law,  in  public  speaking,  and  lastly  and  per- 
haps chiefly  a  course  in  the  use  of  the  English  language. 

10 


THE  SUBJECT  11 

But  he  who  thinks  of  it  only  as  the  latter  will  find  difficul- 
ties that  he  will  never  be  able  to  overcome. 

The  basis  of  all  the  foregoing  evidently  lies  in  the  word 
"thought,"  and  it  is  through  the  door  of  clear  thought 
and  through  that  door  alone  that  we  may  go  out  to  the 
wider  country  that  awaits  the  pubUc  speaker  and  the 
orator.    The  student  who  wishes  to  step  upon  the  public 
platform  and  astonish  the  world  with  his  eloquence  can- 
not realize  too  soon  or  too  strongly  that  his  work  upon 
the  platform  is  but  a  minor  part  of  his  preparation.    No 
man  was  ever  eloquent  who  did  not  have  behind  his  speech 
the  ability  to  think  clearly;  and  the  ability  to  think  clearly 
is  not  necessarily  an  inborn  gift.    Most  of  us  will  find  con- 
siderable consolation  in  the  reflection  that  it  can  be  ac- 
quired by  study  and  practice.     But  the  reader  may  say 
at  this  point,  "I  have  but  httle  desire  and  no  real  hope 
of  becoming  an  orator.    I  only  wish  to  be  able  to  make  a 
good  argument  in  the  ordinary  affairs  of  life."    There  is 
the  more  need  if  this  is  so  that  you  should  realize  that  an 
argument  is  not  necessarily  an  oration,  nor  even  a  written 
forensic,   and   certainly  not  a   "composition."     Funda- 
mentally an  argument  is  what  a  man  does  when  he  wishes 
to  bring  some  other  man's  mind  into  conformity  with  his 
own.    Not  only  the  lawyer  who  pleads  his  case  in  court 
argues,  but  the  doctor  who  tries  to  drive  his  reluctant 
patient  to  take  a  vacation,  the  minister  who  is  endeavor- 
ing to  turn  the  life  of  his  parishioners  upon  a  different  and 
better  way,  the  engineer  who  wishes  to  convince  a  board 
of  directors  that  they  should  appropriate  money  for  further 
extensions,  the  school  teacher  who  desires  to  make  his 
pupil  think  with  him  and  not  merely  accept  his  words,  the 
business  man  who  is  trying  to  obtain  some  one's  money 


12  STRUCTURE 

for  something  that  he  has  to  sell, — all  are  arguing,  and 
as  far  as  the  principle  of  the  thing  goes,  it  does  not  make 
much  difference  whether  you  are  saving  a  nation  or  selUng 
a  nutmeg;  you  have  got  to  go  about  both  tasks  in  the 
same  way,  and  the  beginning  of  this  process  lies  in  clear 
thinking.  So  the  schoolboy  before  he  got  his  new  pen 
and  his  clean  paper  should  have  begun  to  think,  and  he 
should  have  thought  a  long  time  comparatively  before  he 
began  to  write,  and  to  come  directly  to  the  subject  of  this 
chapter,  he  never  should  have  written  his  subject  in  his 
best  handwriting  at  the  top  of  his  page  until  he  had  made 
his  thought  upon  it  clearer  than  his  best  handwriting. 
The  first  thing  that  a  man  who  argues  must  do  is  to  think, 
and  his  first  thoughts  take  the  form  of  analysis,  and  the 
first  step  in  analysis  is  to  establish  clearly  in  his  mind 
what  he  is  thinking  about.  Analysis  as  applied  to  argu- 
ment has  been  said  to  be  the  investigation  of  the  subject  for 
a  central  idea  or  group  of  ideas, ^  and  the  first  step  in  that 
investigation  is  of  necessity  the  wording  of  the  subject 
itself. 

The  subject  comes  into  our  minds  first  not  in  the  form 
of  an  arguable  proposition,  but  in  the  form  of  a  term. 

"Immigration,"     "the     tariff,"      "woman 
Ncc6ssitv  of 
a  proposition    suffrage,"    or   whatever   you    choose,    will 

be  the  subject  of  this  argument  that  you 

are   going   to   write,    but   there  is    no    argument    until 

you  say  something  about  the  tariff,  or  immigration,  or 

woman  suffrage,     A  man  may  write  volumes  upon  any 

one  of  those  subjects,  and  his  writing  may  be  good  or  bad, 

but  so  far  it  is  not  an  argument.    It  will  take  one  of  the 

other  forms  of  English  composition  until  he  takes  his  next 

1  Baker  and  Huntington,  Principles  of  Argumentation,  p.  14, 


THE  SUBJECT  13 

step  and  says  something  about  the  tariff,  for  instance.  The 
moment  he  adds  a  verb  to  his  subject  he  gets  something 
that  may  be  a  subject  of  argument.  ''The  tariff  should 
be  repealed"  then  is  a  subject  in  form  of  words  at 
any  rate.  The  salesman  cannot  say  "automobile"  to  his 
customer  and  expect  any  response.  He  must  put  it  in 
the  form  of  "you  should  buy  an  automobile"  before  it  is 
a  subject  for  argument.  An  illustration  of  this  principle 
which  seems  so  apparent  and  yet  which  is  too  often  ig- 
nored may  be  noted  in  the  contests  for  the  Pasteur  Medal 
at  Harvard  University.  This  medal  is  awarded  for  ex- 
cellence in  what  is  called  an  annual  debate  upon  a  subject 
drawn  from  contemporary  French  politics.  The  contest 
is  conducted  generally  by  the  student  debating  authori- 
ties under  the  direction  of  members  of  the  French 
Department  of  the  University.  Disliking,  and  justly, 
the  artificiality  which  too  frequently  is  the  most  prom- 
inent characteristic  of  college  debates,  the  instructors 
have  from  time  to  time  tried  the  experiment  of  an- 
nouncing, instead  of  a  debatable  subject,  a  term.  In 
recent  years  they  have  discussed  the  proposition,  "The 
president  of  the  French  Republic  should  be  elected  by 
popular  vote,"  and  at  another  time  the  subject,  "  The  poUcy 
of  the  French  government  in  Morocco."  The  first  proposi- 
tion, which  is  in  form  debatable,  led  to  a  real  discussion 
in  which  men  argued.  In  dealing  with  such  a  proposition 
as  the  second  one  quoted,  two  things  happened.  Some 
of  the  men  immediately  transposed  it  into  a  debatable 
question  and  really  argued  that  "the  policy  of  the 
French  government  in  Morocco  is  to  be  commended," 
while  others  who  did  not  go  through  that  process  either 
actually   or   mentally,   did   not   deliver   arguments  and 


14  STRUCTUEE 

too  often  did  not  deliver  anything  but  words.  It 
is  possible,  perhaps,  for  a  man  to  write  description, 
narration,  and  exposition  with  nothing  in  his  mind  but  a 
subject,  but  he  cannot  write  an  argument  without  a 
proposition. 

In  putting  our  subject  into  the  form  of  a  concrete  prop- 
osition, what  must  we  bear  in  mind?     In  dealing  with 

„       .  the  substance  we  must  consider  about  what 

Require-  ,  a  i  i  • 

ments  of  ^'^  ^^'®  ^^  argue.    As  to  the  subject  matter 

proposition  there  are  two  requirements:  first,  that  it 
stance  ^^  evenly  balanced;  and  second,  that  it  be 

capable   of  decision;   both   of   these  terms 
being  used  relatively  and  not  wath  exactness. 

The  subject  must  be  fairly  evenly  balanced.  If  it  is 
not,  then  it  is  not  a  subject  for  argument  but  for  exposi- 
Balance  *^°^"    "^^^  essential  difference  between  argu- 

ment and  exposition  is  that  in  the  former 
you  must  prove  your  case  to  have  it  accepted,  while  in  the 
latter  you  have  but  to  explain.  If  your  audience,  or  your 
hearer,  or  your  reader  then  admits  that  you  are  right,  it  is 
obviously  useless  to  argue.  It  may  be  objected  that  the 
application  of  this  principle  leaves  us  without  any  ques- 
tion to  argue,  for  there  is  a  right  and  wrong  to  every  ques- 
tion, and  no  question  is  evenly  balanced.  There  is  un- 
doubtedly a  state  of  mind  which  in  some  people  becomes 
continuous  and  leads  them  to  accept  this  proposition  as 
fundamental.  All  things  are  to  them  right  or  wrong,  good 
or  bad,  to  be  praised  to  the  extreme  limit  or  to  be  con- 
demned with  equal  \'igor.  Such  people  cannot  argue,  or 
at  any  rate  they  ought  not  to  argue.  The  great  majority 
of  subjects  concerning  which  men  differ  are  after  all 
relatively  right  or  wrong.    There  are,  to  be  sure,  number- 


THE  SUBJECT  15 

less  questions  which  are  obviously  not  capable  of  argu- 
ment. In  the  community  where  we  live  theft  is  both  a 
crime  and  a  sin,  and  the  proposition,  "Thou  shalt  not  steal," 
has  a  positive  right  and  a  positive  wrong  side  and  is  there- 
fore not  open  to  discussion.  But  to  most  minds  the 
proposition,  "Thou  shalt  not  change  the  tariff,"  even  if  it 
be  accepted  as  true,  must  be  admitted  to  be  only  relatively 
true  and  is  therefore  a  question  for  discussion,  B}^  a  re- 
finement of  theory  we  may  say  that  there  is  a  positive 
right  and  wrong  in  every  subject.  Indeed  we  argue  be- 
cause we  beheve  this  to  be  true.  While  there  may 
as  a  matter  of  theory  be  a  positive  right  and  wrong, 
the  question  may  still  be  open  for  discussion.  We  may 
differ  as  to  whether  the  tariff  should  be  changed  or 
not;  theoretically  one  side  must  be  right  and  the  other 
wrong,  but  practically  the  world  does  not  agree  as  to 
which  one  of  us  is  right,  and  in  order  to  come  to  that 
conclusion  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  argue  the  ques- 
tion. 

This  principle  applies  equally  to  what  have  been 
called  questions  of  fact  and  questions  of  policy.  The  law 
courts  deal  principally  with  questions  of 
fact,  the  forum  more  generally  with  ques-  fact  or  policy 
tions  of  policy,  but  it  does  not  follow  that 
even  questions  of  fact  are  not  debatable.  It  is  un- 
doubtedly true  that  in  a  question  of  fact  there  is  an  ab- 
solute right  and  wrong.  The  accused  man  either  did  or 
did  not  kill  the  deceased,  but  it  is  still  debatable  if  we  do 
not  know  which  is  right.  The  evidence  in  a  question  of 
fact  may  be  fairly  evenly  divided,  and  so  the  proposition  is 
open  for  discussion.  On  the  other  hand,  in  a  question  of 
policy,  not  only  the  evidence  may  be  divided  evenly,  but 


16  STRUCTURE 

also  the  good  and  bad  of  the  question.  For  instance,  in 
the  question  of  the  expediency  of  woman's  suffrage  it  is 
fair  perhaps  to  consider  two  points  of  view,  the  social 
and  the  political  effects  of  granting  suffrage  to  women. 
Now  the  evidence  on  each  of  these  two  points  may  be 
fairly  evenly  divided,  while  as  an  absolute  fact  it  is  per- 
haps true  that  the  social  effect  of  woman  suffrage  is  bad 
and  that  the  political  effect  is  good,  or  vice  versa.  That 
is  to  say,  we  may  fairly  say  that  in  no  case  does  the 
existence  of  an  absolute  right  or  wrong  prevent  a  balance 
of  sides.  All  that  we  need  to  ask  then  of  our  question  is 
that  independent  of  its  final  truth,  which  is  what  we  are 
trying  to  find,  there  be  a  reasonable  difference  of  opinion 
as  to  what  that  final  truth  is. 

The  question  may  be  raised  as  to  which  is  preferable 
for  student  discussion,  a  question  of  fact  or  a  question  of 
poUcy.  The  difference  when  reduced  to  its  lowest  terms 
seems  to  be  this.  In  a  question  of  fact  you  consider 
whether  a  thing  actually  happened  or  did  not  happen  in  the 
past.  In  a  question  of  policy  you  consider  whether  the 
result  in  the  future  will  be  desirable  or  undesirable,  prudent 
or  imprudent,  good  or  bad.  One  is  a  question  of  history, 
the  other  a  question  of  expediency.  It  follows  that  a  ques- 
tion of  policy  may  well  become  a  question  of  fact.  At  the 
time  when  this  is  written  whether  we  should  actually 
intervene  in  Mexico  is  a  question  of  policy.  At  the  time 
when  the  words  are  read  it  well  may  have  become  a 
question  of  fact.  Therefore  it  is  immaterial  whether 
the  question  be  one  of  fact  or  policy,  provided  there  is 
enough  difference  of  opinion  in  the  minds  of  those  who 
have  it  under  discussion  so  that  one  man  can  say  "yes" 
to  the  proposition  and  another  can  say  "no"  to  it,  and 


THE  SUBJECT  17 

both  have  a  reasonable  hope  of  obtaining  converts  to 
their  views. 

The  second  test  of  substance  which  a  question  must 
fulfill  is  this:    The  question  must  be  reasonably  subject 
to  decision.    That  the  pen  is  mightier  than 
the  sword  may  be  fairly  evenly  balanced,    of^decision 
but  it  is  certainly  not  a  debatable  subject 
because  it  cannot  be  decided,  and  in  fact,  it  is  not  worth 
while  deciding.     Two  elements  are  necessary  in  order 
that  a  question  may  be  reasonably  subject  to  decision. 

In  the  first  place  it  must  be  physically  possible  to  pro- 
cure evidence.  In  many  instances  the  evidence  has  dis- 
appeared, or  has  become  so  obscure,  or  so  Possibility 
difficult  to  procure  that  the  task  is  beyond  of  procuring 
the  average  student.  For  instance,  it  would 
be  a  waste  of  time  in  all  probability  to  argue  whether  or 
not  the  battleship  Maine  was  destroyed  in  1898  by  an 
internal  or  external  explosion.  There  is,  perhaps,  sufficient 
dispute  with  regard  to  this  question  so  that  we  might  say 
that  it  was  evenly  balanced,  but  it  would  seem  at  the 
present  time  to  be  purely  a  matter  of  opinion  and  one 
upon  which  there  was  not  sufficient  ascertainable  evi- 
dence. It  is  true  that  the  Maine  has  been  raised,  but 
it  would  be  impossible  to  examine  her  personally  and 
equally  impossible  to  get  information  from  the  naval 
authorities.  If  they  have  any,  they  have  suppressed  it  for 
diplomatic  reasons.  Such  a  subject,  therefore,  would  be  a 
poor  one  for  discussion  because  there  is  httle  material 
out  of  which  to  construct  a  discussion,  and  consequently 
the  student  who  selected  this  subject  would  probably 
find  himself  manufacturing  merely  empty  words  and 
phrases. 


18  STRUCTURE 

In  the  second  place  in  order  that  a  question  may  be 
reasonably  capable  of  decision,  all  parties  should  have  a 
Common  common   basis    of   judgment.      You,    your 

basis    of  audience,  and  your  opponent  must  look  at 

ju  gmen  things  in  the  same  way,  not  necessarily  to 

the  extent  that  you  agree,  but  at  least  to  the  extent  that 
you  understand  each  other.  If  this  principle  is  true,  it  is 
apparent  that  any  aesthetic  questions  are  dangerous.  If 
the  only  standard  is  the  standard  of  taste,  there  is  but 
little  value  to  the  discussion.  Whether  the  lily  or  the 
rose  will  grow  better  in  certain  soil  is  perhaps  a  subject 
for  discussion,  but  whether  the  lily  or  the  rose  is  the  more 
beautiful  flower  is  entirely  a  matter  of  taste.  Ques- 
tions of  morals  are,  likewise,  rarely  satisfactory.  To  argue 
with  a  Mohammedan  upon  a  subject  relating  to  polygamy 
would  probably  be  a  waste  of  time.  If  your  question  of 
morals  becomes  also  a  question  of  religion,  there  is  an 
additional  difficulty.  An  argument  with  an  atheist  upon 
the  divinity  of  Christ  where  your  evidence  is  almost  en- 
tirely found  in  the  Bible  would  probably  end  in  a  mass  of 
contradictory  assertions  upon  each  side.  Those  ques- 
tions, however,  in  which  your  opponent  while  he  does  not 
beUeve  that  you  are  right  yet  can  see  that  you  may  be 
right  are  generally  productive  of  the  best  discussion  from 
the  standpoint  of  pure  argument.  As  a  matter  of  sub- 
stance, then,  we  see  that  the  question  must  be  evenly  bal- 
anced; that  is  to  say,  it  must  have  two  debatable  sides 
and  it  must  be  capable  of  decision. 

If,   then,  you   have  a  subject  which  is 

the  subiect      debatable,  that    is   to  say,  there  are  two 

sides  to  it  and  it  can  be  decided,  the  next 

problem  is  one  of  form.     How  shall  the  subject  selected 


THE  SUBJECT  19 

be   worded?     Here    again  there   are   two  requirements 

or  tests. 

In   the   first    place   the  wording    must  be   clear.     In 

order  that   the  wording   may  be  clear   it   is   best   that 

it  be  concise.     The  advantage  of  making    Wording 

the  subject  attractive  is  self-evident,  and     should  be 

•     •  concise 

the  clearer  and  the  shorter,  withm  reason, 

a  subject  can  be,  the  more  attractive  it  becomes.  In- 
deed, it  has  been  said  that  the  success  of  many  plays 
and  of  more  novels  depends  upon  the  subject.  We  all 
know  as  we  read  a  daily  paper  or  a  magazine  how  much 
our  decision  as  to  what  we  shall  read  is  influenced  by  the 
mere  wording  of  the  title.  Most  of  us  would  skip  a 
magazine  article  entitled  ''Resolved;  that  Bill  No.  708 
before  the  Massachusetts  legislature  providing  that  all 
employers  in  industries  and  businesses  involving  the 
use  of  materials  dangerous  to  the  health  or  being  of 
their  employees  be  compelled  to  insure  said  employees 
against  accident  or  disability  arising  from  the  use  of  said 
dangerous  materials  in  a  bonded  corporation  Hcensed  to 
do  business  in  the  state  of  Massachusetts."  Yet  we 
might  be  interested  in  reading  the  same  article  if  it  were 
worded  simply,  ''Should  a  contractor  be  made  to  insure 
his  painters  against  lead  poisoning?"  To  secure  sim- 
pUcity  you  must  be  concise,  you  must  exclude  all  matter 
not  absolutely  necessary  to  make  your  subject  intelligible; 
you  must  include  nothing  that  is  to  any  extent  irrelevant 
or  superfluous;  and  you  must  use  no  long  terms  where  a 
short  word  can  be  found.  The  use  of  unnecessary  long 
words  and  the  inclusion  of  unnecessary  details  arises 
from  a  misapprehension  of  the  importance  of  technicality. 
It  seems  sometimes  to  the  lay  mind  that  most  cases  in 


20  STRUCTURE 

court  are  decided  on  whether  or  not  a  certain  word  in  a 
certain  document  was  spelled  in  a  particular  way.  On 
the  other  hand  the  lawyer  realizes  that  when  the  lay 
mind  attempts  to  legislate,  it  is  almost  sure  to  try  to  pro- 
vide for  every  possible  minute  contingency  that  may  ever 
arise  in  the  interpretation  of  a  law.  Both  errors  are  com- 
mitted through  a  desire  to  obtain  clearness  by  means  of 
precision,  and  it  is  fortunate  indeed  that  there  is  a  tend- 
ency in  the  community  away  from  such  conceptions. 
Legal  pleadings,  laws,  and  questions  for  argument  should 
be  clearly  stated,  but  the  clearness  should  be  the  clearness 
that  comes  through  simplicity  and  not  the  clearness 
that  we  attempt  to  obtain  by  over-elaboration.  What- 
ever may  be  the  importance  of  technicalities  in  law,  they 
are  of  no  importance  to-day  in  ordinary  argument.  The 
day  of  trick  debating  is  gone,  if  it  ever  existed.  Any  argu- 
ment which  the  stupidity  of  both  sides  allows  to  turn 
upon  a  technicality  is  an  argument  decidedly  not  worth 
while.  Indeed,  it  is  sophistry,  not  argument.  It  may  be 
said,  however,  that  if  the  subject  is  not  stated  with  the 
completeness  of  legal  comprehensiveness,  opportunity  is 
given  to  wander  away  from  it.  The  opposite  is  really  the 
case.  If  the  compulsory  accident  insurance  subject  men- 
tioned above  be  stated  with  legal  over-completeness  as 
it  was  first  given,  the  argument  might  very  possibly  turn 
on  whether  insurance  should  be  limited  to  Massachusetts 
companies,  but  if  it  be  stated  simply  and  concisely,  it 
would  of  necessity  turn  upon  the  desirability  of  the  in- 
surance itself.  Those  people  who  endeavor  by  amplify- 
ing phrases  so  to  limit  a  question  that  no  possibility  of 
confusion  may  exist  generally  end  in  creating  confusion. 
No  man  can  make  many  mistakes  if  he  uses  but  few  words, 


THE  SUBJECT  21 

so  that  the  fewer  the  words  in  a  subject  for  argument, 
the  less  possibiUties  exist  that  any  one  of  them  may  be 
misunderstood.  But  while  conciseness  will  prevent  the 
discussion  of  a  technicality  or  a  side  issue,  it  may,  if 
abused,  lead  to  ambiguity,  and  because  of  that  ambiguity 
the  opposing  sides  may  discuss  entirely  separate  and 
even  mutually  exclusive  questions. 

You  must   take   care,   therefore,   that  in  being  con- 
cise  you  do   not    become    ambiguous.    If    the    subject 
were   stated   merely,    "Should    contractors    Subject 
insure    their    painters    against    accident,"    must  not  be 

•J       1         •  u  4.  A      ambiguous 

one    side,    knowmg    what    was    proposed,  ** 

might  discuss  lead  poisoning,  while  the  other  side 
very  probably  would  consider  accident  insurance  in 
general  at  the  expense  of  the  employer.  If  you  cannot 
be  concise  without  being  ambiguous,  then  you  must 
sacrifice  conciseness.  If  you  find  yourself,  however,  in 
this  position,  look  to  yourself  and  do  not  blame  the  prin- 
ciple. Ambiguity  frequently  arises  from  using  a  general 
term  without  a  qualifying  adjective  or  clause.  In  the 
question,  "Is  socialism  desirable?"  one  side  might  dis- 
cuss political  sociaUsm,  the  ownership  by  the  state  of 
public  utilities;  the  other  might  point  out  the  unde- 
sirable features  of  economic  and  social  socialism,  the 
doctrine  of  the  destruction  of  the  family  unit.  If  the 
subject  for  discussion  had  been,  "Is  Marxian  Socialism 
desirable?"  that  ambiguity  could  not  have  existed.  We 
see,  therefore,  that  while  we  are  endeavoring  to  attain  a 
concise  statement  of  our  question  we  must  be  careful  that 
we  do  not  open  the  door  for  ambiguities.  If  we  are  con- 
cise without  being  ambiguous,  we  satisfy  the  first  require- 
ment of  form  in  wording  the  question,  which  is  clearness. 


22  STRUCTURE 

The  second  requirement  of  a  subject  in  form  is: 
the  question  must  be  worded  so  that  the  burden 
Affirmative  ^^  proof  falls  upon  the  affirmative.  It 
must  have  is  in  the  violation  of  this  principle  that 
burden  of  students  and  even  teachers  of  argument 
most  often  err.  Moreover,  it  is  fair  to  say 
that  no  one  mistake  in  the  history  of  the  law  has  led  to  so 
much  confusion  as  the  misuse  of  the  term,  "burden  of 
proof."  It  is  obvious  that  it  can  be  used  with  two  mean- 
ings. In  the  first  place  it  may  mean  that  one  side  has 
placed  upon  it  the  responsibihty  of  satisfjdng  us  that  it 
is  right.  That  burden  always  remains  with  the  side  which 
originally  takes  it  up.  If  you  accuse  a  man  of  stealing 
your  watch,  the  burden  of  proof  that  he  stole  it  rests  upon 
you  from  beginning  to  end,  and  if  the  discussion  stops  at 
any  point,  the  question  to  be  decided  is  whether  or  not 
you  have  shown  that  the  man  stole  your  watch.  The 
burden  of  proof,  then,  when  used  in  this  sense,  which  is 
the  correct  one,  never  shifts.  It  does  not  follow,  however, 
that  the  man  on  the  other  side  has  no  obligation  and  that 
a  burden  of  a  different  sort  does  not  fall  upon  him.  For 
instance,  if  you  show  that  the  accused  man  has  your 
watch  in  his  pocket,  the  question  still  is  whether  he  stole 
the  watch  or  not,  and  the  burden  of  proof  still  rests  upon 
you.  You  have,  however,  gone  far  enough  so  that  you 
can  rest  your  case  and  look  to  him  for  explanation,  and  it 
is  sometimes  said  that  at  such  a  time  the  burden  of  proof 
shifts.  That  is  not  true.  The  burden  of  proof  remains 
the  same,  but  the  accused  has  a  burden  thrust  upon  him 
by  the  circumstances  which  is  sometimes  erroneously 
called  the  burden  of  proof,  but  which  is  better  named  as 
the  burden  of  going  forward.    In  discussion,  as  one  side  or 


THE   SUBJECT  23 

the  other  offers  convincing  arguments,  the  burden  of  going 
forward  will  shift  from  side  to  side,  but  the  burden  of 
proof  never  shifts;  it  always  remains  with  those  who  offer 
the  proposition. 

With  this  understanding,  then,  of  the  words,  "burden 
of  proof,"  let  us  see  why  it  is  that  the  subject  should  be 
so  worded  that  the  burden  of  proof  must  fall  upon  the 
affirmative.  The  rule  is  only  a  recognition  of  the  in- 
variable process  of  the  human  mind.  A  negative  idea 
cannot  exist  until  there  has  been  a  positive  idea  which 
it  contradicts.  One  cannot  say  that  the  sun  is  not  shining 
until  he  knows  that  the  sun  does  sometimes  shine.  If  this 
principle  be  applied  to  argument,  it  is  evident  that  one 
cannot  say  that  any  proposition  is  untrue  until  somebody 
has  formulated  an  idea  that  it  is  true.  In  other  words,  to 
compel  the  negative  to  go  first  in  any  discussion  would  be 
to  compel  them  to  assume  that  their  opponents  had  already 
said  something,  and  if,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  their  opponents 
did  not  say  exactly  what  was  expected,  the  result  must 
be  confusion.  It  is,  therefore,  logical  to  say  that  the 
affirmative  of  any  proposition  shall  start  the  discussion. 
If  you  do  not  give  the  burden  of  proof  to  the  side  which 
starts  the  discussion,  then  you  require  the  so-called  af- 
firmative to  talk  for  some  time  before  anyone  has  ad- 
vanced any  definite  argument.  An  audience  that  hears 
such  a  discussion  will  inevitable  feel  that  something  is 
wrong,  even  if  it  does  not  see  wherein  the  error  really  lies. 

When  we  have  recognized  what  the  burden    jj^^  ^q  And 
of  proof  is  technically  and  that  the  affirma-    the  burden 
tive  should  be  required  to  begin  a  discussion    °  ^ 
because  it  has  the  burden  of  proof,  we  must  consider  for  a 
while  how  you  can  determine  as  a  matter  of  fact  where 


24  STRUCTURE 

it  lies.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  it  is  always  upon  those  who 
desire  to  do  something.  In  both  the  physical  world  and 
in  the  mental  world  inertia  requires  no  justification.  A 
physical  body  stays  still  until  some  force  operates  to  move 
it.  A  judge,  or  an  audience,  or  a  voter,  or  any  human  being, 
who  is  called  upon  to  make  a  mental  decision  will  remain 
quiescent  until  something  occurs  to  make  him  change  his 
mind.  If  you  have  an  automobile  and  your  customer 
has  money  in  his  pocket,  his  money  will  stay  in  his  pocket 
until  you  do  something.  To  apply  the  same  principles  to 
larger  affairs,  whether  the  present  tariff  is  good  or  bad, 
it  is  the  present  tariff  and  will  remain  such  until  its  op- 
ponents show  cause  for  a  change.  The  burden  of  proof, 
then,  is  always  upon  him  who  tries  to  prove  that  the 
present  state  of  affairs  should  be  changed  in  a  particular 
way.  Legislative  bodies  recognize  this  proposition.  A 
bill  is  formed  to  change  existing  law  and  the  proponents 
of  the  bill  are  always  required,  as  a  matter  of  form,  to 
prove  that  it  should  be  adopted,  and  because  they  have 
to  prove  that  it  should  be  adopted,  they  are  expected  to 
open  the  discussion  both  before  committees  and  upon  the 
floor  of  the  legislative  chamber.  In  other  words,  they 
desire  to  make  a  change  and  have  the  burden  of 
proof.  They  are,  therefore,  the  actual  affirmative,  and 
consequently  are  expected  and  required  to  open  the  dis- 
cussion. The  whole  scheme  is  simple  and  any  departure 
from  it  will  inevitably  lead  to  confusion.  It  is  sometimes 
attempted,  where  one  side  appears  stronger  than  the 
other,  to  equalize  matters  by  giving  the  weaker  side  to 
the  affirmative.  If  the  weaker  side  is  the  one  that  is  really 
bringing  forward  the  proposition  no  harm  is  done,  but  if 
the  opposite  is  true,  the  teacher  or  student  who  tries  that 


THE  SUBJECT  25 

experiment  will  only  spoil   the  discussion    without  ac- 
complishing the  result  desired. 

It  is  not  difficult  in  concrete  cases  to  observe  this 
rule  of  placing  the  burden  of  proof  on  the  affirmative. 
If,  for  example,  the  proposition  under  discussion  is  the 
desirability  of  lengthening  the  term  of  the  president  of 
the  United  States,  it  is  obvious  that  the  question  should 
read:  "The  term  of  office  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States  should  be  extended  to  six  years."  It  is  absurd  to 
suppose  that  you  could  get  a  good  discussion  if  the  prop- 
osition were  to  read:  "The  term  of  office  of  the  President 
of  the  United  States  should  remain  at  four  years," 
because  the  mind  naturally  demands  that  anyone  who 
is  desirous  of  changing  the  present  situation  should 
show  us  why  it  should  be  done.  Again,  in  the  dispute 
as  to  whether  Shakespeare  or  Lord  Bacon  was  the  author 
of  the  dramas  which  are  usually  attributed  to  the  for- 
mer, the  adherents  of  the  Baconian  theory  may  have 
evidence  to  support  their  contentions.  Whether  we  agree 
with  them  or  not,  we  will  agree  that  they  have  the  burden 
of  proof  and  should  start  the  discussion.  To  call  upon 
any  man  to  open  the  discussion  and  bring  forward  his 
evidence  when  he  believes  that  Shakespeare  was  the 
author  of  the  plays  which  have  for  some  centuries  been 
attributed  to  him  is  to  attempt  the  impossible,  and  to 
try  to  make  the  human  mind  work  backward.  It  has 
been  said  that  in  formal  debate  the  affirmative  need  not 
be  given  the  first  speech  to  propose  a  change  because  the 
presiding  officer  has  done  this  already  when  he  states  the 
question.  The  statement  of  the  presiding  officer  may 
perhaps  in  a  sense  satisfy  the  proposition  that  the  man 
who  proposes  a  change  should  be  compelled  to  go  first,  but 


26  STRUCTURE 

it  does  not  do  anything  to  sustain  the  other  requirement 
that  he  who  proposes  a  change  must  start  to  show  why 
the  change  should  be  made. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  the  burden  of  proof  depends 
upon  the  community  in  which  you  are;  that  is  to  say,  that 
_  ,  ,  the  burden  of  proof  is  upon  him  who  dis- 
proof as  af-  agrees  with  the  person  or  persons  who  are 
fected  by  hstening.  This  is  not  necessarily  so.  It  is 
true  that  the  beliefs  or  prejudices  of  your 
audience  may  increase  or  diminish  the  difficulties  of  your 
task,  but  the  burden  of  proof,  as  a  matter  of  argument, 
does  not  necessarily  depend  upon  any  such  considerations. 
The  mistake  here  is  that  those  who  make  this  assertion 
fail  to  recognize  the  distinction  between  what  constitutes 
the  burden  of  proof  in  a  question  of  fact  and  in  a  question 
of  poUcy.  In  a  question  of  fact  it  is  indeed  true  that  the 
person  who  proposes  a  change  is  he  who  contends  that 
present  accepted  facts  about  an  act  in  the  past  are  in- 
correct. He  is  the  one  who  is  proposing  both  to  change 
the  existing  state  of  things  and  also  to  change  the  views 
of  his  audience.  But  in  a  question  of  policy  the  burden 
of  proof  is  on  him  who  favors  a  change  in  the  present 
status  in  favor  of  a  different  one  for  the  future.  It  is 
immaterial  whether  the  audience  agrees  with  him  or  not. 
If  the  question  of  national  prohibition  is  being  discussed, 
the  burden  of  proof  remains  with  him  who  desires  its 
adoption  as  a  national  policy  no  matter  whether  he  is 
arguing  in  Maine  where  there  is  State  Prohibition  or  in 
New  York  where  there  is  not.  The  preconceived  ideas  and 
prejudices  and  the  beUefs  of  the  people  you  are  trying  to 
convince  are  material  only  because  in  questions  of  fact, 
that  is,  concerning  things  which  happened  in  the  past, 


THE  SUBJECT  27 

they  decide  what  the  existing  views  are.  Whether  Shake- 
speare or  Bacon  wrote  the  plays  is  a  question  of  absolute 
fact  and  may  be  open  to  discussion,  but  the  world  has  said 
for  many  years  that  Shakespeare  wrote  them,  and  conse- 
quently in  such  a  case  the  existing  opinion  of  the  people 
does  place  the  burden  of  proof  upon  the  adherents  of 
Bacon.  In  a  question  of  policy  as  to  what  course  of  ac- 
tion should  be  adopted  for  the  future,  the  beliefs  of  a 
majority,  however  large,  are  absolutely  immaterial  ex- 
cept that  such  beliefs  make  the  task  of  one  side  harder 
or  easier  as  the  case  may  be.  It  is  plain,  there- 
fore, that  in  all  questions  whether  of  poHcy  or  of  fact  the 
burden  of  proving  that  existing  conditions  should  be 
changed  must  be  given  to  the  affirmative. 

For  the  student,  then,  who  desires  to  write  a  forensic,  or 
to  dehver  a  debate,  or  to  construct  an  argument  in  any 
form,  this  is  the  gist  of  this  chapter.    Your 
subject  must  fulfill  these  four  requirements:    ^j^g  chapter 

1.  It  must  be  fairly  evenly  balanced. 

2.  It  must  be  reasonably  subject  to  decision. 

3.  It  must  be  worded  concisely  but  without  ambiguity. 

4.  It  must  place  the  burden  of  proof  upon  the  affirma- 
tive. 


CHAPTER  III 
EXPLANATION 

It  has  been  said,  and  well  said,  that  when  a  proposition 
is  clearly  stated,  it  is  half  proved.  Now  a  clear  statement 
includes  not  only  a  correct  wording  of  the 
explanation  subject  but  also  an  explanation  of  it.  Be- 
fore there  can  be  any  profitable  discussion 
of  a  question,  the  minds  of  both  the  speaker  and  the  hearer 
must  be  brought  upon  the  same  plane  of  understanding. 
Only  the  beginning  of  this  is  done  when  the  question  is 
stated  and  the  next  task  for  the  student  is  to  give  his 
hearers  such  information  as  they  will  need  in  order  that 
they  may  understand  his  arguments.  Even  the  few  in- 
stances where  the  arguments  begin  abruptly  are  really 
the  exceptions  that  prove  the  rule.  It  may  be  that 
under  peculiar  circumstances  a  subject  has  been  so 
treated  or  so  rests  in  the  minds  of  the  hearers  that 
one  can  begin  immediately  with  the  proof,  but  this  is  so 
only  when  the  explanation  has  been  previously  provided. 
At  some  time  and  in  some  way  the  explanation  must  be 
made.  The  student  must  realize,  however,  that  instances 
where  he  can  dispense  with  an  explanation  of  the  question 
seldom  occur  in  academic  discussions. 

The  explanation  of  the  question  generally  can  be  based 
upon  three  steps: 

(1)  The  immediate  interest  of  the  question. 

(2)  The  history  of  the  question. 

(3)  A  definition  of  its  terms. 

28 


EXPLANATION  29 

We  shall  discuss  these  steps  in  this  order  but  it  is  not 

necessarily  in  this   order   that   the   student  must  treat 

them.     In  perhaps  a  majority  of  the  cases 

it  is  true  that  a  definition  of  the  terms  may    expfanation 

well  wait  until  something  is  said  about  the 

history,   but    there    are    undoubtedly    cases   where    the 

student  will  feel  that  the  first  logical  step  is  to  explain 

some    of    the    technical   terms   that   are   found   in    the 

wording.     For  the  purposes  of  discussion,  however,  we 

will  follow  the  above  order  which  may  perhaps  be  termed 

the  normal  order  of  the  development  of  the  question. 

We  first  consider,  then,  the  immediate  interest  of  the 
question.  In  other  words,  you  must  try  to  answer  the  uni- 
versal interrogation  point  that  greets  any  immediate 
new  statement,  "Why?  "  What  is  the  reason  interest  of 
that  we  discuss  any  of  the  questions  of  the  ^  ^^^^  ^°^ 
day?  It  is  in  answering  this  that  you  begin  to  make  the 
question  clear.  It  is  a  common  habit  of  schoolboys,  and 
even  of  college  students,  to  open  a  debate  with  some 
such  words  as  these:  "The  proposition  under  discussion 
this  evening  is,  Resolved:  that  United  States  coastwise 
shipping  should  pay  tolls  when  passing  through  the 
Panama  Canal."  This  is  mechanical  and  artificial.  It 
does  not  state  why  it  is  being  discussed.  Suppose  on  the 
other  hand  the  debater  should  begin  hke  this:  "President 
Wilson  on  Thursday,  March  5,  1914,  addressed  Congress 
in  part  as  follows:  'I  have  come  to  ask  for  the  repeal  of  that 
provision  of  the  Panama  Canal  Act  of  August  24,  1912, 
which  exempts  vessels  engaged  in  the  coastwise  trade  of  the 
United  States  from  payment  of  tolls.'  It  is  this  question 
which  is  being  discussed  this  evening,  whether  or  not  that 
Act  exempting  our  coastwise  shipping  should  be  repealed.'^ 


30  STRUCTURE 

The  superiority  of  this  opening  over  the  other  is  ap- 
parent. It  states  not  only  what  is  being  discussed,  but 
also  why  it  is  being  discussed.  Such  an  introduction  serves 
a  double  purpose.  It  is  obvious  that  it  tends  to  create 
an  interest  in  the  discussion  by  showing  that  it  is  a  timely 
matter  to  consider,  but  the  very  fact  that  you  have  shown 
that  it  is  timely  also  enables  your  audience  to  under- 
stand it  better.  As  originally  stated,  it  was  a  bald 
proposition  to  be  answered  in  the  affirmative  or  the 
negative;  now  it  has  taken  on  human  interest,  it  has 
become  connected  wuth  the  affairs  of  this  world,  and  we 
understand  it  better  and  see  it  clearer  because  it  is  hu- 
manized. For  this  reason  then  a  statement  of  the  im- 
mediate interest  of  a  given  question  rather  than  a  mere 
restatement  of  the  question  itself  should  be  the  first  step 
in  the  explanation. 

It  may  be  objected  that  everyone  will  know  why  that 
particular  question  is  being  discussed,  and  that  therefore 
it  is  useless  to  tell  them.    The  answer  is  twofold. 

In  the  first  place  it  is  generally  not  true  that  your  whole 

audience  will  know  exactly  the  present  status  of  any 

Indefin'te         proposition.     Their  ideas  upon  it  may  be 

knowledge       hazy.      As    Matthew    Arnold    says,    "The 

of  subject       amount  of  muddy  thought  that  arises  from 
by  audience 

people  who  do  not  see  clearly  and  think 

straight   is   enormous."     In   the   example  given  above 

probably  a  large  majority  of  the  thinking  people  of  the 

United  States  knew  that  the  abolition  of  the  exempting 

clause  in  the  Panama  Canal  Act  was  being  considered 

generally,  but  it  is  safe  to  assert  that  probably  a  majority 

of  these  same  thinking  people  did  not  appreciate  that  the 

President  of  the  United  States  had  advocated  it  in  a  mes- 


EXPLANATION  31 

sage  to  Congress.  The  statement  of  this  concrete  fact 
cannot  help  but  dispel  the  haze.  Furthermore,  we  are 
constantly  surprised  to  find  that  things  which  are  well 
within  our  own  knowledge  have  never  come  even  to  the 
attention  of  other  people.  Our  interests  and  those  of  our 
friends  may  by  environment  and  in  other  ways  be  closely 
associated,  for  instance,  with  the  woolen  interests  of  this 
country.  To  us  Schedule  K  of  the  tariff  and  its  various 
provisions  may  be  familiar  and  interesting  and  we  think 
at  first  that  everyone  with  whom  we  come  in  contact  will 
have  that  same  general  interest  and  same  knowledge.  Yet 
it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  there  are  people  equally  in- 
telligent as  ourselves  who  are  perfectly  willing  to  be  en- 
lightened upon  the  tariff  but  who  have  never  even  known 
that  the  letter  "K"  was  used  to  designate  the  schedule  of 
duties  on  woolens.  It  is  safe,  therefore,  to  call  to  the  atten- 
tion of  any  audience  the  immediate  interest  of  the  proposi- 
tion for  the  purpose  of  giving  them  accurate  information. 
In  the  second  place,  even  if  by  chance  your  whole  au- 
dience knows  clearly  why  the  question  is  of  immediate 
interest,  good  and  not  harm  will  be  done  by  jj^mediate 
caUing  attention  to  it.     It  serves  as  a  nat-  interest  a 

ural  starting  point  and  avoids  ambiguity,   patural  start- 

^  ^  ,  ^^S  point 

In    President    Lincoln's    famous    letter    to 

General  McClellan  the  first  two  paragraphs  are  as  follows: 

"You  and  I  have  distinct  and  different  plans  for  a  movement 
of  the  Army  of  the  Potomac,  yours  to  be  down  the  Chesapeake, 
up  the  Rappahannock  to  Urbana,  and  across  land  to  the  ter- 
minus of  the  railroad  on  the  York  River;  mine  to  move  directly 
to  a  point  on  the  railroad  southwest  of  Manassas. 

"  If  you  will  give  me  satisfactory  answers  to  the  following 
questions,  I  shall  gladly  yield  my  plan  to  yours." 


32  STRUCTURE 

It  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  ]\IcCleIlan  did  not  have 
full  and  accurate  understanding  of  the  subject  under 
discussion,  and  yet,  nothing  is  plainer  than  that  this  was 
an  admirable  beginning  for  the  letter  to  follow. 

The  first  step  then  of  the  explanation  is  the  immediate 
interest  of  the  question;  its  purposes  are  to  state  the  prop- 
osition and  to  tell  why  it  is  of  particular  interest  at  the 
present  time. 

The  second  step  of  the  explanation  is  the  history  of  the 

question.     While   the   proposition  has  been  stated   and 

while  we  may  now  know  the  reason  that  it 
History  of  the .       ,  i.     r  •   x        ^    -^  •        . 

question  ^^  ^^  present  of  mterest,  its  meanmg  has 

not  been  clearly  explained.  This  may  be 
done  most  effectively  by  tracing  the  development  of  the 
proposition  from  its  origin  to  the  present  day.  Each 
question  is  necessarily  bound  up  with  past  conditions 
and  events.  It  may  be  one  phase  of  a  widespread  move- 
ment. Such  considerations  may  and  do  affect  vitally  our 
decision  in  practically  every  matter.  Our  judgment  is  as 
a  rule  formed  upon  the  background  of  past  experience. 
Suppose  the  question  be  whether  Ulster  is  justified  in 
opposing  home  rule  for  Ireland.  It  may  have  been  made 
clear  to  us  where  Ulster  is  and  what  it  is  and  we  may 
realize  that  the  Home  Rule  Bill  is  pending  or  has  just 
been  passed  in  the  English  Parliament,  but  even  then, 
it  is  an  utter  impossibiUty  to  understand  the  full  import 
of  the  question  unless  we  have  a  complete  knowledge  of 
the  past  political  relations  between  Ulster,  the  remainder 
of  Ireland,  and  England.  Who  can  possibly  understand 
the  question  of  Home  Rule  for  Ireland  if  he  is  ignorant 
of  the  fact  that  Ireland  once  had  a  parUament  of  its 
own? 


EXPLANATION  33 

The  length  and  completeness  of  this  historical  sketch 

will  vary  with  the  subject  and  the  circumstances.    It  is  a 

common  error  to  forget  that  in  introducing    ^^^^^^  ^f 

an  argument,  the  history  of  the  question  is    the  history 

a  means  only  and  not  an  end  in  itself.    Noth-    *^^*  ^^  ^^^" 

"^  essary 

ing  should  be  included  in  the  history  which 

is  not  essential  for  the  fulfillment  of  its  purposes.  These 
are  to  clear  up  all  doubts  as  to  what  actually  is  proposed 
and  to  offer  a  background  of  experience  against  which  this 
proposal  is  to  be  judged.  If  the  history  is  over-long  and 
over-complete,  the  argument  will  be  top-heavy  and  cum- 
bersome. If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  too  concise,  essential 
ideas  necessary  to  the  understanding  of  the  question  may 
be  omitted.  The  student  in  writing  this  part  of  his  intro- 
duction, as  well  as  the  other  parts,  should  bear  in  mind 
that  it  is  written,  not  as  an  exercise  in  narration  or  exposi- 
tion, but  for  the  sole  purpose  of  enabling  the  audience 
to  understand  the  question  more  clearly. 

This  sketch  of  the  development  of  the  question  brings 
you  to  the  third  step,  a  definition  of  the  terms  of  the 

proposition  itself.    You  have  now  told  why 

:     .       „  .  ,  ,  ,  •,       Definition  of 

it  IS  of  interest  and  you  have  shown  its    ^.j^g  terms 

relation  to  past  events.  It  must  by  these 
means  have  become  better  known  to  your  audience,  and 
yet,  there  may  be  some  things  about  it  which  they  do  not 
understand.  You  must  now  explain  briefly  as  is  con- 
sistent with  clearness  what  are  the  provisions  of  the  meas- 
ure or  what  are  the  essentials  of  the  movement  under  dis- 
cussion. The  importance  of  a  thorough  and  accurate 
definition  of  the  question  can  hardly  be  exaggerated.  The 
casual  arguments  one  hears  every  day,  in  which  each  party 
is  equally  positive,  usually  end  by  each  finding  that  he 


34  STRUCTURE 

agrees  with  the  other  but  that  he  was  talking  about 
a  different  thing.  For  instance,  a  discussion  arose  as  to 
whether  a  certain  state  official  had  passed  the  Civil  Serv- 
ice. One  person  said  he  had,  another  said  he  had  not. 
It  finally  appeared  that  the  one  meant  that  he  had  been 
approved  by  the  Civil  Service  Board,  while  the  other  felt 
sure  that  he  did  not  have  to  take  Civil  Service  examina- 
tions. Both  were  right.  The  official  had  been  approved 
by  the  Board  but  he  did  not  have  to  pass  an  examination 
of  any  sort.  There  could  have  been  no  argument  if  either 
party  had  taken  the  trouble  to  explain  what  was  meant 
by  "passing  the  Civil  Service." 

The  need  of  definition  arises  under  one  or  more  of  three 
conditions, — when  a  term  is  ambiguous,  or  is  used  in  an 

unusual  sense,  or  is  entirely  unfamiliar  to 
definition         ^^^^  audience.    In  each  case  the  dictionary 

furnishes  but  little  help.  Any  word  needing 
definition  will  probably  be  used  in  a  pecuHar  and  special 
sense  not  given  by  the  dictionary  but  dependent  upon  the 
context.  The  very  fact  that  it  requires  definition  suggests 
that  it  is  not  used  in  the  general  sense  that  the  dictionary 
will  give.  In  some  instances  the  word  may  be  perfectly 
well  understood  by  everyone  and  yet  its  application  to 
the  question  under  consideration  may  be  in  doubt.  For 
instance,  in  the  question,  "Should  our  navy  be  materially 
increased?"  no  one  is  in  doubt  as  to  what  the  word 
"materially"  means  and  no  dictionary  need  be  consulted, 
and  yet,  until  the  meaning  of  that  word  in  its  application 
to  this  question  is  settled,  it  is  impossible  for  the  discus- 
sion to  proceed  with  effectiveness.  One  side  might  claim 
that  two  battleships  would  constitute  a  material  increase 
to  our  navj^,  while  the  other  would  say  that  twenty  should 


EXPLANATION  35 

be  constructed  before  the  increase  could  be  really  ma- 
terial. Whichever  is  right,  it  is  obvious  that  as  long  as 
the  meaning  of  the  word  remains  unsettled,  the  discus- 
sion will  not  be  a  discussion  with  regard  to  the  increase 
of  the  navy,  but  a  discussion  with  regard  to  the  meaning 
of  the  word  "material."  In  academic  work,  such  as  class- 
room exercises  and  debates,  the  meaning  of  such  words 
can  frequently  be  arbitrarily  settled,  but  if  an  agreement 
cannot  be  reached,  you  must  convince  your  audience  that 
your  interpretation  is  the  correct  one.  The  most  effective 
method  is  by  means  of  the  history  of  the  question.  If  you 
are  able  to  show  what  meaning  has  been  put  on  the  ques- 
tion in  the  past,  it  is  fair  to  assume  that  that  meaning 
naturally  governs  its  meaning  at  the  present.  Again,  the 
unfamiliar  term  may  be  a  technical  or  foreign  one,  or  it 
may  embody  a  whole  system  of  action.  In  the  first  you 
have  the  exception  where  a  dictionary  definition  is  some- 
times allowable.  For  instance,  in  the  question,  ''Is  rear 
axle  transmission  better  than  body  transmission  for  a 
heavy  automobile?"  a  later  edition  of  Webster  gives  this 
definition:  "Transmission  (mechanical).  The  gear,  in- 
cluding the  change  gear  and  the  propeller  shaft  or  driving 
chain  (or  chains)  by  which  the  power  is  transmitted  from 
the  engine  of  an  automobile  to  the  live  axle."  Such  a 
definition  as  this  may  well  serve  as  a  starting  point  in  an 
explanation  of  the  mechanical  problem  involved.  While 
it  is  still  too  technical  to  be  absolutely  plain,  it  does  tell 
us  that  the  word  is  used  to  describe  that  portion  of  the 
machinery  through  which  the  power  is  applied.  Or  sup- 
pose that  the  question  is,  "Should  the  Glass-Owen  cur- 
rency bill  be  adopted?"  Here  the  dictionary  is  useless, 
and  the  history  of  previous  currency  measures,  while  it 


36  STRUCTURE 

helps  us  to  understand,  does  not  clearly  explain.  It  is 
evident  that  you  must  explain  the  vital  provisions  of  the 
proposed  bill.  No  material  feature  should  be  omitted,  and 
yet,  no  immaterial  ones  should  be  included. 

Too  frequently  in  academic  work  students  are  inclined 
to  define  in  one  sentence  each  of  the  terms  of  the  proposi- 
tion, whether  it  needs  explanation  or  not. 
definitions  Nothing  can  be  more  useless  and  nothing 
more  fatal  to  clear  thought.  Suppose  you 
have  for  discussion  the  proposition,  "All  elective  state 
officers  should  be  nominated  by  direct  primaries."  A 
categorical  definition  of  "elective  state  officers,"  "nomi- 
nated," "direct"  and  "primaries"  not  only  does  not 
throw  light  upon  the  meaning  of  the  proposition  but  ac- 
tually confuses  the  mind,  and  yet,  all  three  of  the  means 
of  explanation  which  we  have  been  discussing  can  be 
applied  to  that  question  with  advantage.  Surely  it  will 
help  us  to  understand  this  question  if  we  are  made  to 
reaUze  that  there  is  a  present  tendency  in  the  United 
States  toward  direct  primaries,  that  many  experiments 
and  trials  have  been  made  in  the  past  of  various  systems, 
and  finally  what  are  the  essential  features  of  the  system 
under  discussion. 

It  should  be  noted  that  there  are  some  cases  where  any 
definition  of  terms  is  unnecessary.  This  apphes  especially 
when  you  have  been  preceded  by  a  speaker  whose  intro- 
duction has  been  satisfactory  to  you;  or  when  the  question 
is  simple  and  of  very  widespread  interest.  It  would 
hardly  add  to  the  clearness  of  the  question,  "The  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  should  be  elected  for  a 
single  term  of  six  years"  for  you  to  define  any  of  the 
terms. 


EXPLANATION  37 

From  the  foregoing  pages  it  is  evident  tiiat  we  may  do 

three  things  to  make  the  question  clearly  understood  by 

our  hearers,  and  it  is  submitted  that  gener-    <^ 

oummary 
ally  we  ought  to  do  all  these  three  things. 

In  the  first  place  we  must  satisfy  their  legitimate  curiosity 
as  to  why  the  question  is  being  discussed  at  all.  This 
in  itself  is  effective  in  making  the  meaning  of  the  subject 
clear  to  our  hearers.  This  we  have  called  the  immediate 
interest  of  the  question.  In  the  second  place  we  must  tell 
them  all  the  facts  in  the  past  which  have  led  up  to  the 
present  situation  and  which  have  a  logical  bearing  upon 
its  discussion.  In  this  way  it  ceases  to  be  an  abstract 
proposition,  existing,  if  it  exists  at  all,  in  a  theoretical 
world,  and  becomes  a  matter  logically  connected  with 
some  particular  portion  of  the  world's  activities.  It  has 
a  past  and  by  means  of  the  past  the  present  may  be  under- 
stood and  the  future  predicted.  This  we  term  the  history 
of  the  question.  And  finally  we  take  up  the  very  wording 
of  the  question  itself,  and  if  the  origin  and  the  history 
have  not  made  it  plain,  we  must  carefully  and  accurately 
define  any  of  its  terms  which  may  still  leave  a  hazy  im- 
pression upon  the  minds  of  our  audience.  When  all  of 
these  three  things  have  been  done  or  when  we  are  sure 
those  that  have  not  been  done  are  unnecessary,  we  have 
taken  our  second  step  and  have  come  to  a  clear  understand- 
ing of  the  meaning  of  the  question  to  be  discussed. 


^^t  rt  "H^  fT  ""^  'd' 


CHAPTER  IV 
THE  MAIN   ISSUES 

The  human  mind,  even  the  most  imperfect  human 
mind,  is  naturally  analytical.  "It  looks  to  the  essence  of  a 
thing,  whether  it  be  a  point  of  doctrine,  of  practice  or  of 
interpretation."  ^  Therefore,  if  we  are  to  convince  the 
minds  of  other  people  of  the  correctness  of  our  proposi- 
tion, we  must  show  them  what  the  essence  of  it  is.  The 
process  of  comaction  in  the  human  mind  is  not  accom- 
plished by  pouring  into  it  a  torrent  of  words,  no  matter 
how  impressive  they  may  be.  The  words  must  express 
ideas,  and  the  more  we  think  upon  any  subject,  the  more 
we  reaUze  that  the  essential  ideas  in  its  discussion  are 
comparatively  few.  The  speaker  who  can  find  most 
accurately  and  state  most  clearly  the  fundamental  points 
that  underlie  his  discussion  will  possess  an  advantage  over 
his  competitor  who  does  not  adopt  such  a  course  that  the 
latter  can  never  overcome.  Valuable  and  suggestive  as 
the  work  that  we  have  done  in  stating  and  explaining  the 
question  may  be,  it  is  but  two  prehminary  steps  leading 
to  the  real  purpose  of  this  general  process  of  analysis. 
If,  as  we  have  seen,  analysis  of  a  proposition  is  an  investi- 
gation for  a  central  idea  or  group  of  ideas,  it  is  evident 
that  the  next  and  last  step  of  this  process  of  analysis  is 
the  investigation  proper. 

The  question  that  now  confronts  us  is  what  are  the 

1  Meditations,  Marcus  Aurelius  Antoninus. 
38 


THE  MAIN  ISSUES  39 

fundamental  points  upon  which  our  discussion  rests,  and 
how  can  we  find  those  fundamental  points.  The  answer  is 
obvious.  They  must  be  found  by  thinking;  Nature  of 
and  experience  has  shown  that  we  can  the  main 
train  our  minds  in  accurate  thought.  Sup-  ^^^^^^ 
pose  that  we  have  carefully  stated  our  proposition  and  ex- 
plained its  meaning.  If  we  then  examine  the  contents  of 
our  minds  with  regard  to  it,  we  will  find  that  we  have  a 
large  number  of  ideas  more  or  less  closely  connected  with 
the  question.  Figures,  facts,  incidents,  illustrations  and 
opinions  of  other  men  are  all  present,  and  constitute  a 
mass  of  knowledge  which  has  but  little  order.  The  process 
of  stating  the  question  and  explaining  it  has  done  some- 
thing to  clear  up  and  arrange  this  mass  of  information, 
but  it  is  still  confused.  Yet  in  it  we  see  certain  ideas 
recurring  frequently,  stated  perhaps  a  little  differently 
but  nevertheless  beginning  to  stand  out.  These  ideas  we 
must  see  more  clearly  in  order  that  our  hearers  may  see 
them  most  clearly.  Gradually  it  dawns  upon  us  that  there 
are,  underlying  the  whole  discussion,  one  or  two  or  more 
questions  of  vital  importance  which,  if  we  can  answer 
them  successfully,  would  be  decisive.  These  essential 
ideas  or  fundamental  points  are  the  points  at  issue  around 
which  our  discussion  is  to  be  waged,  and  we  therefore 
call  them  the  main  issues.  For  illustration  let  us  suppose 
that  we  are  discussing  the  question  of  the  abolition  of 
capital  punishment,  and  that  we  have  thought  about  the 
subject  and  read  about  it  until  we  are  amazed  at  the 
variety  of  our  knowledge.  Phrases  hke  "judicial  murder," 
"murder  in  the  first  degree,"  "beyond  reasonable  doubt," 
"rights  of  organized  society,"  etc.,  all  more  or  less  sug- 
gestive of  ideas,  are  ever  present  with  us,  but  we  find  that, 


40  STRUCTURE 

instead  of  helping,  they  seem  to  confuse  us.  In  the  midst 
of  the  confusion,  however,  we  are  aware  that  many  of 
these  ideas  seem  to  center  around  and  bear  upon  the 
question  of  the  prevention  of  crime,  and  it  is  not  long 
before  we  realize  that  the  question  as  to  whether  capi- 
tal punishment  is  justified  or  not  is  to  a  large  degree 
dependent  upon  a  subsidiary  question  as  to  whether 
capital  punishment  is  an  efficient  means  of  preventing 
crime.  We  realize  that  other  things  may  be  concerned 
in  the  discussion,  that  there  may  be  other  ideas  equally 
important,  but  nevertheless  that  this  is  one  of  the  main 
issues. 

What  is  the  process  that  we  go  through  in  coming  to  this 
conclusion?  First,  we  accumulate  a  large  amount  of 
How  the  material;  then  we  arrange  this  material  into 

main  issues  two  groups,  that  which  tends  to  prove  our 
are  found  proposition  and  that  which  tends  to  dis- 
prove it.  When  it  is  thus  arranged,  we  find  that  upon 
careful  examination  some  of  it  disappears  because,  while 
it  seems  to  have  something  to  do  with  the  case,  it  really 
does  not  bear  upon  the  points  at  issue.  Some  of  it 
drops  out  because  it  is  of  httle  importance  although 
probably  true.  Some  of  it  probably  true  and  perhaps 
of  some  importance  we  arbitrarily  decide  to  exclude  be- 
cause, after  all,  it  is  impracticable  to  discuss  it.  After 
we  have  done  this,  our  main  issues  become  more  prom- 
inent, but  perhaps  not  yet  entirely  distinct.  We  find 
possibly  that  they  fall  into  groups,  that  they  are  stated 
too  broadly,  that  two  which  we  thought  distinct  have 
come  so  closely  together  that  they  are  merely  variations 
of  the  same  thought.  Eventually  by  careful  scrutiny 
we  reduce  these    ideas   to   their   lowest  form  until  we 


THE   MAIN  ISSUES  41 

have  a  few  fundamental  thoughts  which  must  run 
through  the  entire  discussion  upon  which  its  decision 
depends,  and  these  we  make  our  main  issues.  To  state 
this  process  categorically  we  find  it  is  based  upon  these 
three  steps : 

1.  A  contrast  of  the  conflicting  opinions. 

2.  A  reduction  of  this  conflict  to  its  lowest  terms,  by 

a.  The  exclusion  of  extraneous  matter; 

b.  The  exclusion  of  trivial  matter; 

c.  The  exclusion  of  waived  matter. 

3.  A  statement  of  these  lowest  terms  as  the  Main 
Issues. 

First,  we  form  a  contrast  of  conflicting  opinions.  The 
word  "opinion"  is  used  intentionally.  Much  that  we  find 
at  first  is  not  knowledge  but  merely  what 
some  writer  or  thinker  upon  the  subject  opinion 
has  thought  was  knowledge.  The  first  thing 
to  do  is  to  get  these  opinions  categorically  stated.  It  is 
evident  that  the  conflict  of  opinion  thus  formed  will  con- 
tain some  that  is  good  and  much  that  is  bad,  but  we 
should  be  careful  to  include  in  it  all  that  has  been  said 
about  the  subject  for  and  against,  whether  to  our  minds 
it  is  good  or  bad.  The  conflict  of  opinion  then  may  be 
defined  as  a  detailed  statement  of  the  arguments  in  favor  of 
a  proposition  as  opposed  to  the  arguments  against  it.  This 
conflict  of  opinion  may  be  and  probably  will  be  without 
order  or  coherence.  As  ideas  have  come  to  you,  they  have 
come  to  you  the  good  and  the  bad,  the  weak  and  the 
strong,  treading  upon  each  other's  heels.  You  arrange 
them  as  they  come,  making  no  other  division  than  to  see 
upon  which  side  of  the  fine  they  fall.  Every  speaker,  every 
writer,  does  this  mentally  at  any  rate,  and  many  would 


42  STRUCTURE 

be  better  speakers  or  writers  if  they  would  put  these 
ideas  into  physical  form.  Let  the  student  then  who  is 
about  to  write  on  any  subject  arrange  in  one  column  all 
the  arguments  that  he  knows  in  favor  of  the  proposition, 
and  let  him  with  equal  frankness  and  equal  diligence 
arrange  in  the  other  column  all  the  arguments  that  he 
knows  against  it.  He  will  then  have  accomplished  his 
first  step  and  formed  a  conflict  in  opinion. 

The  conflict  of  opinion  thus  constructed  resembles  in 
some  respects  the  problems  in  factoring  in  mathematics. 
Reduction  of  Everything  is  there,  either  above  or  below 
the  conflict  the  line,  but  by  inspection  we  find  that  much 
o  opimon  ^£  ^^  ^^^  -^^  removed,  and  that  the  more 
that  is  removed,  the  clearer  the  remainder  becomes. 
There  are  many  things  which  we  must  consider  in  pick- 
ing out  the  important  arguments  from  the  mass  that  is 
before  us,  but  nearly  all  that  we  wish  to  do  can  be  ac- 
complished if  we  exclude  from  the  argument  all  matter 
that  is  extraneous,  or  trivial,  or  waived.  It  may  be  that 
this  classification  is  not  inclusive,  but  it  is  sufficiently 
comprehensive  for  practical  purposes. 

We  at  once  see  that  some  of  the  arguments  are  extrane- 
ous; they  do  not  relate  to  the  subject  at  all  although  they 
may  have  been  advanced  in  good  faith  by 
matter  those  who  have  spoken  or  written  upon  the 

subject,  and  may  indeed  have  appealed  to 
our  minds  when  we  first  thought  of  the  question.  These 
arguments  do  not  prove  the  question  under  discussion. 
They  often  have  a  cogency  if  applied  to  some  topic  more 
or  less  related  to  it,  but  upon  inspection  it  is  evident 
that  whether  these  particular  arguments  are  true  or  not, 
they  do  not  tend  to  decide  the  question.    Such  .argu- 


THE  MAIN  ISSUES  43 

ments  are  outside  of  the  question  and  we  say  that 
they  are  extraneous.  It  is  obvious  that  if  they  do 
not  prove  anything,  they  have  no  place  in  our  argu- 
ment, and  merely  confuse  our  hearers.  They  may  be 
extraneous  for  many  reasons,  but  they  most  often  creep 
into  an  argument  when  we  are  biased.  The  greater 
the  interest  that  we  feel  in  the  subject  under  discus- 
sion, and  the  more  closely  it  touches  our  sympathies, 
the  less  we  are  inchned  to  question  any  argmnent  that 
sounds  well.  It  behooves  us,  therefore,  if  we  are  especially 
interested,  to  be  the  more  careful  in  this  process  of  elimina- 
tion, and  to  scrutinize  most  carefully  every  argument  that 
is  presented  to  see  if  it  really  bears  upon  the  question. 
We  find  the  most  frequent  illustrations  of  this  error  of 
including  arguments  which  do  not  really  bear  upon  the 
question  in  those  propositions  which  have  a  moral  or 
rehgious  aspect.  It  is  common  fallacy,  for  instance,  for 
those  who  are  arguing  in  favor  of  the  national  prohibition 
of  the  sale  of  liquor  to  argue  vehemently  upon  the  evils  of 
intemperance,  or  the  bad  effect  of  alcohol  upon  the  human 
system.  It  is  true  that  we  may  spend  some  time  with 
profit  upon  this  subject  in  order  that  our  hearers  may 
have  a  due  conception  of  the  magnitude  of  the  proposi- 
tion, but  after  all,  it  is  a  matter  for  explanation  and  not 
for  proof.  The  question  presupposes  that  an  evil  exists. 
Even  our  opponents  agree  with  us.  The  evils  of  intem- 
perance are  not  an  issue  at  all;  it  is  a  question  of  con- 
trolling those  evils.  In  any  analysis  of  this  question, 
therefore,  we  decide  that  all  arguments  in  the  conflict  of 
opinion  which  tend  to  show  the  evils  arising  from  the  use 
of  intoxicating  liquors  are  really  extraneous  to  a  ques- 
tion concerning  the  control  of  the  liquor  traffic. 


44  STRUCTURE 

After  we  have  excluded  all  extraneous  thoughts  from 
our  conflict  of  opinion,  there  still  remains  much  that 

would  confuse  the  mind.  As  we  look  at  the 
matter  various  arguments  some  seem  greater  than 

others,  and  some  of  the  smaller  sink  into 
insignificance.  An  argument  may  be  true  and  may  tend 
to  prove  the  proposition,  and  yet  be  of  so  little  impor- 
tance that  its  proof  one  way  or  the  other  exerts  little 
influence  on  our  minds.  Clearly  such  an  argument  cannot 
be  fundamental.  As  all  people  who  argue  are  or  should 
be  desirous  of  convincing  with  as  few  words  as  possible, 
we  can  frequently  produce  better  results  by  dismissing 
immediately  such  arguments  from  the  discussion.  In  the 
prohibition  question,  again,  for  instance,  the  opponents 
might  well  point  out  that  under  a  strict  law  alcohoUc 
liquor  could  not  be  bought  for  use  as  a  medicine.  This 
may  be  true  but  it  is  not  fundamental.  When  we  are 
discussing  the  best  method  of  controUing  the  evils  of  in- 
temperance we  see  at  once  that  the  use  of  hquor  as  a 
medicine  is  trivial  in  comparison  with  the  greater  issues 
involved. 

When  we  have  dismissed  the  trivial  as  well  as  the 
extraneous   thoughts,   the   argument    is   much   simpler. 

If  we  have  done  our  work  well,  everything 

matS-  ^^^^  ^^  ^^^^  "^^^^  ^®  cogent  and  will  be  of  some 

importance.  We  are  aware  nevertheless 
that  it  is  not  yet  brought  to  its  lowest  terms.  There  are 
still  arguments  which,  it  is  evident,  cannot  be  made  main 
issues  for  our  discussion.  We  cannot  dismiss  them  as 
not  bearing  upon  the  question,  because  they  frequently  do 
bear  upon  the  question.  We  cannot  dismiss  them  as  triv- 
ial, because  they  are  of  considerable  importance.    We 


THE   MAIN  ISSUES  45 

do  dismiss  them,  however,  because  for  one  reason  or  an- 
other it  is  undesirable  to  discuss  them.  Some  are  of  such 
a  character  that  it  is  practically  impossible  for  them  to 
be  decided.  Others  it  is  impracticable  to  discuss  because 
of  our  own  limitations.  Still  others  it  is  inexpedient  to 
discuss  because  of  the  occasion  or  the  nature  of  the  au- 
dience.   All  such  matters  we  decide  to  waive. 

In  some  discussions  this  waiver  can  be  agreed  upon  be- 
forehand. In  the  law  courts  attorneys  frequently  agree 
that  for  the  purposes  of  a  particular  hearing  points  of 
comparative  importance  may  be  waived.  A  good  example 
of  this  is  seen  in  an  argument  before  a  lower  court  where 
the  constitutionality  of  an  act  passed  by  the  legislature 
is  one  of  the  questions  at  stake.  This  may  be  of  the 
utmost  importance  to  both  the  parties,  yet,  realizing  that 
a  court  of  inferior  jurisdiction  will  never  take  it  upon  itself 
to  overrule  an  act  of  the  legislature  until  a  supreme  court 
has  done  so,  the  attorneys  ordinarily  waive  any  original 
constitutional  questions  when  they  are  before  inferior  tri- 
bunals. In  debates  in  colleges  and  schools  the  same  thing 
is  frequently  done,  and  the  practice  has  much  to  commend 
it.  While  high  school  students,  for  instance,  may  be  per- 
fectly able  to  discuss  with  advantage  to  themselves  broad 
questions  of  national  poHcy,  it  is  not  to  their  discredit 
that  they  are  not  able  to  understand  intricate  problems 
of  constitutional  law.  When  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  decides  upon  the  constitutionality  of  the 
Income  Tax  by  a  vote  of  five  to  four,  it  would  be  rather 
remarkable  if  any  layman  of  any  age  could  intelligently 
discuss  the  constitutional  point.  Frequently,  therefore, 
the  parties  to  these  disputes  agree  that  the  constitu- 
tionaUty  of  such  a  question  is  not  to  be  discussed.     In 


46  STRUCTURE 

these  cases  the  matter  is  waived  by  agreement,  but  a 
speaker  may  himself  decide  that  he  can  safely  waive  an 
argument  which  is  of  some  importance.  Just  prior  to 
the  Civil  War  a  speaker  pleading  for  the  cause  of  the  North 
in  any  of  the  border  states  might  feel  very  strongly  upon 
the  subject  of  slavery.  Indeed  he  might  feel  that  it  was 
the  most  important  element  of  the  question,  and  yet 
with  perfect  propriety  waive  it  from  the  discussion.  In 
waiving  arguments,  however,  we  must  be  careful  that 
we  have  a  valid  reason  for  our  action.  If  a  question  is 
fundamental,  we  cannot  prevent  its  being  so  by  declining 
to  discuss  it,  and  he  who  seeks  to  waive  any  argument 
must  be  ready  to  convince  his  audience  that  he  has  the 
right  to  waive  it.  It  is  evident  that  we  cannot  well  waive 
any  of  our  opponent's  arguments.  A  waiver  is  some- 
thing that  may  be  made  by  one  side,  but  if  not  agreed 
upon  it  cannot  be  forced  upon  the  other. 

We  will  also  find  in  the  conflict  of  opinion  certain  argu- 
ments upon  the  one  side  or  the  other  which  it  is  at  once 
evident  are  true.  These  arguments  may  be 
matter  ^^  greater  or  less  importance,  but  it  is  ob- 

vious that  of  whatever  their  importance,  if 
they  are  true,  they  cannot  be  the  subject  of  dispute.  Fair 
play  and  good  policy  alike  compel  the  side  against  whom 
these  arguments  tend  to  admit  their  validity.  Such 
arguments  may  be  called  admitted  matter.  The  next  ques- 
tion is  as  to  the  disposition  that  shall  be  made  of  it. 

It  has  been  said  by  some  writers  that  admitted  matter 
must  be  treated  in  the  same  way  that  trivial  or  extraneous 
matter  is  treated,  appearing  only  in  the  introduction, 
and  cannot  become  a  main  issue.  This  is  too  broad  a 
statement.    Naturally  the  truth  of  admitted  matter  is  not 


THE  MAIN  ISSUES  47 

at  issue,  but  the  importance  of  it  may  well  become  a  main 
issue.  Our  very  admission  strengthens  its  effect,  and  we 
may  be  forced  to  meet  it  as  one  of  the  p^gj^j^Q 
principal  points  which  the  other  side  will  and  use  of 
insist  upon  discussing.  A  good  example  of  admitted 
this  was  found  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the 
sixteenth  amendment  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  in  any  discussion  with  regard  to  the  passage  of  an 
income  tax.  The  advocates  of  such  a  tax  were  forced  to 
admit  that  it  was  unconstitutional,  and  this  admission  con- 
stituted in  the  minds  of  many  people  a  powerful  argu- 
ment against  such  a  tax.  Upon  such  an  admission,  how- 
ever, the  question  did  not  pass  from  the  discussion,  and 
did  not  become  merely  introductory  matter.  The  advo- 
cates of  an  income  tax  were  forced  to  recognize  the  in- 
creased burden  that  was  cast  upon  them  by  such  an  ad- 
mission, and  the  opponents  rightly  made  it  one  of  the 
principal  points  of  discussion.  The  disposition  of  ad- 
mitted matter,  therefore,  in  the  conflict  of  opinion  depends 
upon  the  magnitude  and  cogency  of  the  matter  admitted, 
rather  than  upon  the  mere  fact  that  both  sides  agree  as 
to  its  truth. 

If  we  have  done  our  work  of  elimination  properly,  there 
is  nothing  extraneous  or  trivial  left,  and  we  have  disposed 
of  any  arguments  which  we  do  not  believe 
it  would  be  profitable  for  one  reason  or  an-   andreducing 
other  to  discuss.    What  remains  is  of  prime    the  residue 
importance,  and  in  what  remains  are  found 
the  main  issues.    It  does  not  follow,  however,  that  this 
residue  is  yet  in  the  form  of  main  issues.    In  constructing 
the  conflict  of  opinion  we  were  more  interested  in  getting 
together  a  quantity  of  arguments  than  in  deciding  how 


48  STRUCTURE 

those  arguments  should  be  expressed.  Consequently, 
while  the  ideas  that  remain  are  of  prime  importance,  they 
may  be  and  generally  are  poorly  expressed.  We  may  find 
that  the  same  argument  appears  in  two  forms,  and  that 
what  we  at  first  thought  were  two  arguments  are  really 
two  different  ways  of  expressing  one  idea.  It  is  evident 
then  that  these  must  be  consolidated  and  the  best  word- 
ing for  the  idea  chosen.  These  subordinate  propositions 
must  be  worded  concisely  but  without  ambiguity  as  was 
required  of  the  main  proposition. 

So  the  student,  even  after  he  has  eliminated  the  chaff 
and  has  left  only  the  wheat,  must  arrange  his  wheat  to 
improve  its  appearance.  Eventually  he  finds  that  he 
has  one  or  more  subsidiary  propositions  which  he  has 
stated  in  simple  terms,  and  these  become  his  main  issues; 
upon  the  discussion  of  these  the  success  of  his  argu- 
ments depends.  If  he  has  done  his  work  well,  he  has 
taken  perhaps  the  greatest  step  in  winning  his  case.  It 
is  a  maxim  among  lawyers  that  if  you  can  get  a  judge  or 
jury  to  accept  your  analysis  of  the  case,  you  are  well  on 
the  road  to  winning.  If  your  hearers  are  saying  to 
themselves,  "This  is  well  stated.  This  is  the  right  way 
to  approach  this  subject,"  the  task  of  convincing  them  is 
comparatively  easy.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  they  question 
the  accuracy  of  your  analysis,  you  will  find  it  impossible 
to  convince  them  of  the  correctness  of  your  result.  If  you 
have  really  brought  your  analysis  to  its  lowest  terms,  you 
will  ordinarily  be  surprised  to  find  how  few  are  the  really 
fundamental  subdivisions.  A  student  who  thinks  that 
there  are  six  or  eight  fundamental  reasons  for  his  argu- 
ment will,  in  ninety-nine  cases  out  of  a  hundred,  discover 
that  he  is  mistaken,  and  that  some  of  them  were  not  a3 


THE  MAIN  ISSUES  49 

fundamental  as  they  seemed.  Indeed  it  is  perfectly  pos- 
sible that  the  decision  of  any  question  may  depend  upon 
one  subsidiary  proposition,  that  all  that  has  been  said  or 
thought  about  it  may,  by  a  process  of  elimination,  be 
brought  down  to  one  question,  the  answer  to  which  must 
inevitably  solve  the  problem.  No  speaker  of  modern 
times  had  this  faculty  of  analysis  better  developed  than 
Abraham  Lincoln,  and  the  reader  of  his  speeches  is  con- 
tinually impressed  by  the  fact  that  he  considered  com- 
paratively few  subordinate  principles.  In  his  Springfield 
speech,  for  instance,  which  has  been  said  to  have  decided 
that  he  should  be  defeated  for  the  senatorship  and  subse- 
quently elected  to  the  presidency,  there  was  to  his  mind 
but  one  main  issue  at  that  time  before  the  country.  This 
he  embodied  in  the  words,  "A  nation  cannot  long  exist, 
half  slave  and  half  free."  In  striking  contrast  we  find 
students  frequently  jumping  at  their  issues  too  speedily. 
Imagine  Mr.  Lincoln  dividing  his  discussion  into  the 
political,  social,  and  economic  effect  of  slavery,  or  the 
necessity,  practicability,  and  justice  of  its  abolition.  Such 
a  division  is  worthless.  It  is  mechanical,  inflexible,  and 
artificial.  It  does  not  express  the  gist  of  the  matter  but 
merely  various  points  of  view  from  which  the  question 
could  be  considered.  If  it  will  be  remembered  that  analysis 
is  an  investigation  for  a  central  idea  or  group  of  ideas,  it 
will  be  clear  that  such  a  system  of  ready-made  topics 
falls  far  short  of  satisfying  our  needs.  It  is  like  a  ready- 
made  dress  suit  which,  because  it  is  made  to  fit  everyone, 
really  fits  no  one.  Indeed,  the  mystic  number  three  seems 
to  be  the  bane  of  student  discussions.  If  there  are  to  be 
three  speakers  in  a  debate,  it  is  certainly  convenient  to 
find  three  issues  so  that  each  one  may  have  a  separate 


50  STRUCTURE 

issue,  but  unfortunately  political,  social,  economic  or  eth- 
ical questions  were  not  primarily  constructed  for  high 
school  or  college  debaters,  and  it  is  more  a  matter  of  chance 
than  anything  else  that  they  should  have  three  main 
issues.  Any  attempt  to  get  at  the  issues  of  a  question 
except  by  a  process  of  careful  analysis  is  a  pure  matter 
of  chance  with  the  odds  very  much  against  the  speaker. 
You  may  have  three  main  issues.  You  may  possibly  have 
four,  but  you  do  not  come  upon  them  by  chance,  but 
through  careful  thinking. 

It  is  obvious  that  when  you  have  settled  upon  the  main 
issues,  your  introduction  is  complete.  You  have  then 
stated  your  question  in  what  you  believe 
to  be  its  best  possible  form.  You  have  ex- 
plained its  meaning  by  showing  how  it  came  under  dis- 
cussion, and  what  its  history  has  been,  and  what  any 
particular  or  specific  term  means.  You  have  arranged  all 
the  arguments  for  it  and  against  it,  and  by  a  process  of 
elimination  have  excluded  those  which  do  not  bear  upon 
the  question,  which  are  of  no  importance,  or  which,  for 
some  other  reason,  you  do  not  think  it  profitable  to  dis- 
cuss. Finally  you  have  stated  the  result  in  definite  main 
issues  which  you  intend  to  prove  and  upon  the  decision  of 
which  you  are  wiUing  to  rest  your  case. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  BRIEF 

"Look  before  you  ere  you  leap: 
For  as  you  sow,  ye  are  like  to  reap." 

Whatever  may  be  said  of  the  figures  of  speech  in  this 

couplet  of  Butler,  the  sense  must  appeal  to  the  student  of 

argument.    If  we  mix  our  thoughts  as  badly 

as  Butler  mixed  his  metaphors,  we  must     ~r  „  ^^^ 

f        f  or  a  plan 

not  be  surprised  if  the  harvest  is  confusion. 
No  sane  man  enters  upon  any  important  undertaking  with- 
out first  considering  with  more  or  less  exactness  his  prob- 
able course  of  action.  A  student,  even  if  he  has  carefully 
analyzed  his  subject  and  arrived  at  correct  main  issues,  is 
not  yet  ready  to  write  his  argument.  If  he  begins  im- 
mediately to  write  upon  his  first  issue,  he  will  probably 
find  when  he  has  completed  the  argument  that  it  does 
not  turn  out  as  he  expected.  He  may  wish  that  he  had 
not  spent  so  much  time  upon  his  first  issue  because  he 
feels  that  he  has  made  it  too  important  in  comparison  with 
the  rest  of  the  argument,  or  he  may  wish  that  he  had 
saved  until  a  later  time  where  it  would  have  been  more 
effective,  a  certain  piece  of  evidence  which  he  used  early  in 
his  argument,  or  he  may  find  that  something  which  would 
have  been  of  advantage  if  used  earlier  in  the  development 
of  the  case  he  has  been  unable  to  use  in  treating  the  last 
issue.     If  he  had  had  a  carefully  prepared  plan  of  his 

argument,  all  of  these  questions  could  have  been  settled 

51 


52  STRUCTURE 

before  he  began  to  write.    The  plan  of  an  argument  is 

called  the  brief. 

This  plan  must  serve  two  purposes.    In  the  first  place 

it  is  a  direct  help  to  the  man  who  makes  it.    When  Robin- 
son Crusoe  had  finally  saved  all  that  he 

Value  of  plan      ^^^  ^^.       ^^^^  ^^ie  wreck  to  his  desert 

to  writer  ° 

island  and  was  facing  his  future  existence 

under  desperate  circumstances,  he  first  drew  up  a  state- 
ment of  his  situation  in  which  he  balanced  the  good 
against  the  bad.  Now  Robinson  Crusoe  was  alone, 
shut  off  from  all  communication  with  the  rest  of  man- 
kind. The  statement  that  he  drew  up  was  obviously 
never  to  be  used  either  as  a  record  of  events  or  as  a  com- 
munication to  other  people.  Its  sole  purpose  was  to  en- 
able him  to  comprehend  his  situation  more  accurately, 
and  Defoe,  when  he  made  his  hero  perform  this  task, 
realized  that  it  would  not  seem  unnatural  or  useless  to 
his  readers.  Everyone  knows  that  the  moment  any  prop- 
osition which  the  mind  has  to  consider  becomes  even 
in  the  slightest  degree  confused  much  is  gained  by  putting 
it  in  written  words,  so  that  it  is  presented  to  the  eye  in 
definite  form.  We  frequently  wish  to  see  how  a  thing 
looks  "in  black  and  white"  before  we  finally  pass  judg- 
ment upon  it.  This  is  the  first  purpose  of  the  brief.  It 
visuaUzes  our  thought  for  our  own  benefit. 

VisuaUzing  our  thought  only  for  our  own  benefit  is  not 
enough;  the  brief  must  not  only  appeal  to  our  own  minds, 
but  must  be  constructed  so  that  it  may 
to^reader^^^  appeal  to  the  minds  of  other  people.  We  can 
perhaps  best  appreciate  the  second  purpose 
of  the  brief  by  considering  the  origin  of  the  word  itself. 
The  word  is  borrowed  from  the  legal  fraternity.     The 


THE  BRIEF  53 

English  barrister  seldom  sees  his  client,  and  almost  never 
sees  the  witnesses  until  the  trial  begins.  He  gets  his 
information  from  the  solicitor  who  practically  prepares 
the  case.  The  solicitor's  work  is  finally  handed  to  the 
barrister  in  written  form,  and  this  form  contains  the 
principles  of  law  involved,  the  facts  which  are  to  be  proved, 
and  a  substantial  statement  of  the  evidence  which  can  be 
offered  to  prove  them.  This  is  called  a  brief,  and  it  is 
still  in  England  a  brief  statement  of  the  case  in  all  its 
branches  submitted  to  another  person  for  his  benefit.  In 
this  country  the  legal  brief  is  more  a  memorandum  of 
evidence  and  authorities  and  is  submitted  to  the  court. 
But  the  purpose  is  much  the  same.  It  is  a  plan  of  the  case 
submitted  to  a  third  person  for  his  benefit.  It  is  prepared 
in  order  that  the  person  to  whom  it  is  submitted  may 
be  able  to  understand  and  criticise  the  arguments. 

We  cannot,  of  course,  expect  criticism  of  our  style  from 
this  preliminary  plan,  but  it  is  possible  to  present  the 
arrangement    of    our    arguments    and    the    Definition 
evidence  by  which  they  are  to  be  proved  at    of  a  brief  in 
this  time,  and  a  brief,  if  correctly  drawn,    ^^2^°^^^ 
will  enable  a  critic  to  pass  judgment  upon  the  structure 
and  the  substance  of  our  argument.    A  brief  then  may  be 
defined  as  a  detailed  plan  of  the  argument  which  aids  the 
composer  in  visualizing  his  thoughts,  and  enables  the  reader 
to  criticise  its  structure  and  substance. 

The  student  may  think  and  probably  does  think  that  if 
every  speaker  had  to  take  the  time  to  prepare  a  brief  as 
carefully  and  as  elaborately  as  the  ones  re-    ^     outline 
quired  in  courses  in  argument,  public  men 
would  by  the  very  limitation  of  time  be  unable  to  speak 
as  much  as  their  business  or  profession  requires.     The 


54  STRUCTURE 

reply  to  this  objection  is  twofold.  In  the  first  place  a 
great  deal  that  is  said  and  written  for  the  public  would 
never  be  said  or  written  if  much  preliminary  thought 
were  required.  It  is  perhaps  true  that  if  briefs  had  been 
required  of  all  ministers,  lawyers,  politicians  and  states- 
men, the  quantity  of  argument  would  have  been  dimin- 
ished but  its  quality  improved.  Still  the  exigencies  of 
every  profession  do  require  men  to  speak  and  argue  when 
they  have  not  time  to  prepare  themselves  as  elaborately 
as  they  might  wish.  On  such  occasions  they  are  obliged 
to  content  themselves  with  preparing  an  outline  which  it 
would  be  possible  to  develop  into  a  brief,  but  which  is 
not  a  brief  in  form.  An  outline  is  also  a  plan  of  an  argu- 
ment, but  in  less  detail.  For  practical  purposes,  however, 
the  outline  has  one  advantage  over  the  brief.  While 
the  outline  does  not  give  as  much  information  as  the 
brief  of  what  the  argument  is  going  to  be,  yet  the  informa- 
tion that  it  does  give  is  more  readily  discernible.  The 
very  fullness  of  the  brief  tends  to  conceal  its  structure 
even  though  it  be  carefully  composed.  The  outline  may 
be  compared  to  the  skeleton  of  the  human  body  which 
shows  only  the  position  of  the  bones,  while  the  brief  may 
be  likened  to  an  anatomical  chart  which  endeavors  to 
portray  the  various  systems  of  the  body.  The  student 
would  get  a  quicker  idea  of  the  structure  of  the  body 
from  the  inspection  of  the  skeleton,  but  he  would  know 
more  about  the  body  after  a  careful  study  of  the  ana- 
tomical chart.  If,  therefore,  it  is  not  practicable  to  pre- 
pare a  brief,  there  will  generally  be  an  opportunity  to 
prepare  a  more  or  less  extended  outline,  and  this  may  be 
constructed  so  as  to  satisfy  the  first  purpose  of  the  brief, 
which  is  to  visualize  the  thinking,  even  if  it  does  not  en- 


THE  BRIEF  55 

tirely  satisfy  the  second,  which  is  to  afford  a  basis  for 

criticism  of  the  substance  of  the  argument. 

Both  brief  and  outline  should  not  be  confused  with 

the  notes  from  which  a  speech  is  delivered.    The  purposes 

are  different  and  the  time  of  construction 

is  different.    A  speaker's  notes  are  ordinarily    outline  dis- 

prepared  after  the  argument  is  completed,     tinguished 

,  .   ,      1  J  ,  .    1  from  speak- 

and  are  mtended  merely  as  a  remmder  so    ^^,^  notes 

that  he  may  develop  his  subject  in  the  order 
that  he  had  planned  and  use  the  material  that  he  had 
prepared.  The  form  of  these  notes  is  of  little  importance 
as  long  as  it  is  suited  to  the  needs  of  the  speaker.  They 
may  consist  of  a  practical  synopsis  of  everything  that  is 
to  be  said,  or  they  may  be  merely  a  few  catch  words 
written  upon  a  card  that  the  speaker  can  conceal  in  the 
palm  of  his  hand.  They  are  not  primarily  a  plan  of  the 
argument.  They  may  be  meaningless  to  anyone  except  the 
speaker.  They  are  merely  aids  to  memory  and  have  ful- 
filled their  purpose  if  they  enable  the  speaker  to  remember 
his  prearranged  composition.  Glance  at  the  following 
which  is  said  to  be  the  notes  from  which  Abraham  Lincoln 
delivered  a  plea  in  one  of  his  early  cases. 

"No  contract. — Not  professional  services. — Unreasonable 
charge. — Money  retained  by  Deft  not  given  to  Pl'tt. — Revolu- 
tionary War. — Describe  Valley  Forge  privations. — PI' it's  hus- 
band.— Soldier  leaving  home  for  army. — Skin  Deft. — Close." 

While  this  was  undoubtedly  sufficient  for  the  speaker, 
it  is  evident  at  once  that  it  did  not  help  Mr.  Lincoln  either 
to  analyze  his  case,  or  to  present  a  clear  idea  of  the  argu- 
ment to  anyone  else.  Both  of  those  purposes  had  un- 
doubtedly been  accomplished  long  before  the  notes  were 
jotted  down. 


56  STRUCTURE 

The  value  of  a  brief  in  visualizing  the  arguments  and 
in  presenting  them  to  a  third  person  depends  largely,  if 
Needs  of  ^^^  entirely,  upon  its  clearness,  and  a  brief 
uniform  rules  cannot  be  clear  unless  it  is  constructed 
or  ne  g  according  to  certain  fixed  principles.  Ac- 
cordingly, it  has  been  found  convenient  in  teaching  the 
subject  to  require  that  briefs  be  constructed  according  to 
a  uniform  set  of  rules.  A  system  of  brief  making  is  much 
like  a  system  of  book-keeping.  The  main  thing  to  be 
accomplished  is  to  provide  a  system  which  is  efficient 
and  convenient  for  the  purposes  of  the  person  using  it. 
It  does  not  follow,  therefore,  that  the  rules  which  are  here 
given  are  necessarily  the  best  rules  for  every  particular 
writer.  Many  things  which  are  not  here  required  might 
tend  to  make  a  brief  clearer,  and  it  is  possible  that  some 
writers  might  find  some  of  the  things  required  by  this  set 
of  rules  unnecessary.  They  are  fully  as  simple,  however, 
as  those  generally  offered  by  other  writers  on  the  subject, 
and  they  have  worked  well  in  practice  when  used  by 
classes  of  college  and  high  school  students.  It  is  obvious 
that  for  teaching  purposes  uniformity  in  brief  making  is 
necessary  for  all  the  class.  The  work  of  criticism  would 
be  rendered  doubly  difficult  if  the  critic  did  not  have 
some  standard  to  which  the  work  done  by  the  students 
must  conform.  It  is  highly  desirable  that  these  rules 
should  be  memorized.  In  this  way  the  student  will  not 
only  be  more  likely  to  observe  them,  but  in  correcting  the 
briefs  the  teacher  can  readily  refer  to  the  rules  by  num- 
bers which  will  effect  a  large  saving  of  work. 

The  purpose  of  these  rules  is,  as  we  have  seen,  to  pro- 
duce a  plan  which  will  clarify  the  ideas  of  the  writer, 
and  present  a  clear  view  of  the  argument  to  the  reader. 


THE  BRIEF  57 

We  will  now  see  the  way  in  which  each  rule  tends  to  this 
result.  Of  these  rules  the  first  five  evidently  apply  to 
the  entire  brief,  and  are  therefore  termed  ^  system  of 
general  rules.  The  next  three  apply  only  to  rules  for 
that  portion  of  the  brief  which  we  have  "^  ^ 
called  the  introduction.  The  three  that  follow  apply  to 
that  portion  of  the  brief  which  we  have  called  the  proof, 
and  the  last  rule  applies  only  to  the  conclusion. 

Rule  I.  A  brief  should  be  divided  into  three  parts 
marked  Introduction,  Proof,  and  Conclusion.  In  other 
words,  the  brief  should  conform  to  the  argument  itself. 
As  every  argument  must  have  an  introduction  in  which 
the  speaker  states  what  he  is  going  to  do,  an  argument 
proper  in  which  he  does  the  work  that  he  has  previously 
set  for  himself,  and  a  conclusion  in  which  he  shows  that 
he  has  accomplished  his  task,  to  omit  any  one  of  these 
three  portions  of  an  argument  is  to  hamper  seriously  its 
effectiveness.  It  is  obvious  that  the  argument  proper 
or  proof  could  not  be  omitted  because  then  there  would 
be  no  argument  at  all.  But  if  there  is  no  introduc- 
tion, if  the  speaker  begins  immediately  to  marshal  his 
evidence  without  a  word  as  to  what  he  esteems  his  task 
to  be,  his  hearers  cannot  appreciate  the  value  and  pur- 
pose of  the  work  he  is  doing.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  when 
his  argument  is  completed,  he  leaves  it  abruptly,  it  will 
lose  much  of  its  effectiveness  because  his  hearers  are  not 
reminded  of  the  purpose  of  his  argument,  and  shown  that 
he  has  accomplished  that  purpose.  If,  then,  an  argument 
must  have  an  introduction,  a  proof,  and  a  conclusion,  the 
brief,  which  is  a  plan  of  the  argument,  must  surely  follow 
the  same  construction. 


58  STRUCTURE 

Rule  n.  The  relation  of  ideas  in  the  brief  should  be 
indicated  by  indentations  into  main  headings  and  sub- 
headings. This  rule  merely  recognizes  a  principle  with 
which  we  are  all  familiar.  We  all  realize  how  much 
easier  it  is  to  read  either  manuscript  or  print  if  it  is  prop- 
erly subdivided  into  paragraphs  and  sentences.  The  eye 
quickly  catches  the  change  in  position,  and  realizes  that 
it  indicates  a  change  in  thought.  If  in  the  brief  we  begin 
main  propositions  at  the  left-hand  margin,  and  every 
time  we  make  a  subsidiary  division,  begin  the  statement  a 
little  further  to  the  right  upon  the  page,  it  will  be  evident 
when  the  brief  is  completed  that  it  will  be  much  more 
quickly  and  easily  understood  than  if  the  statements  were 
all  placed  directly  under  each  other.  If  we  adopt  this 
system,  the  first  main  heading  of  our  brief  will  begin  at 
the  extreme  left.  Following  the  page  down  with  our  eye 
we  will  find  that  vertically  under  this  main  heading  will 
be  the  beginning  of  every  other  main  heading  in  the  brief. 
A  little  further  to  the  right  we  will  find  in  another  vertical 
column  all  the  subheadings,  and  still  further  what  we 
may  describe  as  the  "sub-sub-headings,"  and  so  on.  If 
the  work  is  accurately  done,  the  relative  bearing  of  each 
statement  to  the  main  proposition  can  be  determined  at 
a  glance  from  the  position  that  it  occupies  upon  the  page. 
For  instance,  at  the  left  of  the  page  in  the  first  vertical 
line  in  the  Proof  will  be  the  main  issues  themselves. 
Everything  that  appears  in  that  line  will  be,  therefore, 
a  main  issue.  In  the  second  line  will  be  subdivisions 
of  the  main  issues,  and  everything  that  appears  in  that 
line  will  tend  directly  to  prove  the  main  issue  to  which  it 
is  subordinate,  and  indirectly,  or  in  what  we  may  call 
the  second  degree,  to  prove  the  main  proposition.    Still 


THE  BRIEF  59 

further  removed  to  the  right  in  the  third  vertical  line  will 
be  found  propositions  which  prove  subdivisions  of  the 
main  issues,  and  everything  in  that  line  will  be  related  to 
the  proof  of  the  main  proposition  in  what  we  may  term 
the  third  degree;  that  is  to  say,  to  continue  our  "House 
that  Jack  built,"  it  will  prove  the  truth  of  a  subdivision 
that  proves  the  truth  of  a  main  issue  which  in  turn  proves 
the  truth  of  the  proposition  itself,  and  the  system  can  be 
carried  on  to  any  degree  of  remoteness.  This  rule  then 
is  for  the  sole  purpose  of  aiding  us  in  the  purely  me- 
chanical visualization  of  our  thought;  it  enables  the  eye 
to  catch  readily  the  relation  and  importance  of  the  various 
ideas. 

Rule  III.  The  relation  of  ideas  should  be  further  in- 
dicated by  a  uniform  system  of  symbols,  each  heading 
being  marked  by  one  and  only  one  symbol.  This  rule, 
Uke  the  previous  one,  is  an  endeavor  to  render  the  reading 
of  a  brief  easier  by  aiding  the  eye  to  catch  quickly  the  rela- 
tive importance  and  position  of  the  idea.  In  the  preced- 
ing rule  we  made  the  position  on  the  page  a  help  to  us. 
Here  we  give  each  idea  a  number  or  letter  to  distinguish 
it,  and  according  to  the  kind  of  number  or  letter  which 
we  use,  its  relative  position  and  importance  is  also  deter- 
mined. Thus,  for  example,  the  main  issues  not  only  may 
be  placed  at  the  left  of  the  page,  but  are  also  designated 
by  Roman  numerals  I,  II,  III,  etc.  Their  subdivisions 
may  in  turn  be  designated  by  capital  letters  A,  B,  C,  etc., 
and  further  subdivisions  by  Arabic  numerals,  and  so  on. 
If  the  scheme  adopted  is  kept  uniform,  we  have  another 
aid  for  telling  at  a  glance  what  relation  the  particular 
thought  expressed  bears  to  the  main  proposition.     The 


60  STRUCTURE 

following  has  been  found  by  much  experience  to  be  one 
of  the  simplest  and  most  useful  methods  of  symboUzation. 
I. 
A. 
1. 
a. 

(1) 
(a) 
Not  only  should  each  idea  be  marked  by  one  symbol, 
but  it  should  not  be  marked  by  more  than  one.  There  is 
always  a  temptation,  if  you  cannot  quite  see  the  relation 
of  your  ideas,  to  change  your  method  of  numbering  so  as 
to  force  your  brief  to  conform  to  your  thought.  This  is 
not  what  we  are  trying  to  do.  We  are  trying  to  make  our 
thoughts  clear  by  arranging  them  so  as  to  conform  to  the 
rules  of  briefing.  If  the  student  finds  that  he  cannot  ar- 
range his  ideas  logically  and  give  a  single  symbol  to  each 
idea,  he  should  realize  that  the  fault  is  with  his  own  crude 
thoughts,  and  not  with  the  principles  of  briefing.  If  the 
correlation  of  his  thought  is  right,  every  separate  idea 
will  drop  into  its  proper  place,  and  can  be  designated  by 
one  and  only  one  symbol. 

Rule  IV.  Each  heading  should  be  phrased  as  a  com- 
plete statement.  This  rule  is  a  recognition  of  the  prin- 
ciple to  which  we  have  already  alluded  in  considering  the 
wording  of  the  subject.  It  is  the  object  of  the  brief  that 
ideas  shall  be  clearly  presented.  Now  it  is  far  easier  to 
be  confused  when  we  are  thinking  in  phrases  than  it  is 
when  we  are  thinking  in  completed  sentences.  As  long 
as  we  use  general  terms  and  incomplete  statements,  we 
may  fall  into  an  error,  but  the  moment  we  complete  our 


THE  BRIEF  61 

statements  we  become  more  definite  and  the  possibility 
of  error  is  diminished.  The  reason  for  this  rule  then  is 
that  it  tends  toward  definite  expression  and  thus  toward 
clearness  of  thought. 

Rule  V.  Each  heading  should  contain  but  a  single 
proposition  or  idea.  In  the  previous  rule  we  learned  that 
each  heading  should  contain  a  complete  and  definite  idea. 
We  now  find  that  not  only  should  the  idea  be  complete 
and  definite,  but  also  that  it  should  be  single.  This  again 
is  in  the  interests  of  clearness.  When  we  consider  each 
heading,  we  wish  to  find  out  whether  it  is  a  logical  expres- 
sion of  our  thought  and  tends  to  help  our  argument.  If 
the  heading  contains  more  than  one  idea  all  that  we  have 
tried  to  accomplish  by  the  previous  rules  with  regard  to 
symbols  and  indentations  is  lost  because  the  relations  of 
two  separate  ideas  cannot  be  so  shown. 

Rule  VI.  In  the  introduction  expository  briefing 
should  be  used,  in  which  each  heading  explains  or  is  a 
division  of  the  heading  to  which  it  is  subordinated.  It 
will  be  remembered  that  the  introduction  of  an  argument 
is  essentially  an  explanation.  Briefing  is  of  two  forms: 
in  the  form  which  we  call  expository,  each  heading  ex- 
plains or  is  a  division  of  the  one  to  which  it  is  subordinate; 
in  the  form  which  we  call  argumentative,  each  heading 
proves  the  heading  to  which  it  is  subordinate.  Therefore 
in  the  introduction  we  use  expository  briefing.  In  giving 
the  history  of  the  question,  for  instance,  there  may  be  a 
number  of  important  events  or  a  number  of  important 
phases  of  the  situation  which  we  have  to  consider.  Each 
of  these  is  naturally  subdivided  into  matters  of  lesser 


62  STRUCTURE 

importance,  and  these  in  turn  may  also  be  subdivided. 
When  set  down  in  that  fonn,  they  constitute  a  complete 
explanation  of  the  history  of  the  question  in  which  each 
event  or  phase  of  the  situation  has  its  relative  position 
and  value.  The  subordinate  statements  do  not  show 
that  the  statements  to  which  they  are  subordinated  are 
true.  They  merely  are  natural  subdivisions  or  explana- 
tions of  it.  The  relation  of  ideas,  however,  is  just  as 
important  in  the  introduction  as  anywhere  else.  Each 
heading  should  be  a  true  subdivision  or  explanation  of 
a  heading  that  precedes  it.  It  should  be  a  subdivision 
not  merely  in  form;  it  should  also  be  one  in  sense  and 
the  logical  connection  of  ideas  should  be  just  as  trace- 
able in  the  introduction  as  it  is  in  any  other  part  of  the 
brief. 

Rule  VII.  The  main  headings  of  the  introduction 
should  be  those  steps  in  the  analysis  necessary  for  an 
intelligent  reading  of  the  brief.  The  introduction  serves 
to  analyze  the  entire  proposition  and  reduce  it  to  its  main 
issues.  The  steps  therefore  which  we  take  in  our  argument 
are  of  necessity  the  principal  steps  of  the  brief.  In  other 
words,  if  you  find  it  necessary  to  state  the  immediate 
interest  of  the  question,  the  first  division  of  your  brief 
introduction  ^  should  be  the  immediate  interest  of  the 
question.  That  should  be  followed  by  your  second  sub- 
division, which  is  the  history  of  the  question,  and  that 
by  the  third,  which  is  the  definition  of  the  question, 
provided  all  these  steps  are  necessary.  If  for  any  rea- 
son it  is  desirable  to  change  the  order,  it  should  be  changed 
in  the  brief  introduction.  The  general  rule  of  the  in- 
1  Abbreviated  form  for  "brief  of  the  introduction," 


THE  BRIEF  63 

troduction  should  be  that  it  contain  all  that  is  necessary 
in  order  that  the  body  of  the  brief  may  be  understood, 
and  all  that  is  necessary  for  that  understanding  can 
ordinarily  be  included  under  the  various  steps  of  the 
analysis  which  have  been  outlined  in  the  previous  chap- 
ters. Using  these  steps  as  the  main  subdivisions  will 
produce  a  uniformity  of  treatment  which  tends  to  clear- 
ness. 

Rule  VIII.  The  introduction  should  always  be  con- 
cluded with  the  main  issues.  Probably  the  most  im- 
portant point  in  the  whole  process  of  your  preliminary 
thought  is  the  establishing  of  the  main  issues,  and  when 
the  main  issues  are  established,  it  does  not  seem  possible 
to  carry  the  process  of  analysis  any  further.  From  that 
time  on  your  work  is  one  of  synthesis  rather  than  analysis. 
You  are  engaged  in  constructing  rather  than  in  taking  to 
pieces.  The  introduction  of  the  argument,  therefore, 
properly  ends  with  the  establishment  of  the  main  issues. 
For  this  reason  it  is  logical  that  it  should  occupy  the  same 
place  in  the  brief.  Besides  being  the  logical  place  for  the 
main  issues,  it  is  also  convenient  for  the  purposes  of  both 
writer  and  critic  that  the  main  issues  should  always 
appear  in  the  same  position.  In  that  way  they  may  be 
readily  found  even  at  the  most  hasty  examination.  As  a 
matter,  therefore,  both  of  logic  and  of  convenience  the  last 
thing  in  the  brief  introduction  should  always  be  a  state- 
ment of  the  main  issues. 

Rule  IX.  In  the  proof  argumentative  briefing  should 
be  used,  in  which  each  heading  offers  proof  of  the  head- 
ing to  which  it  is  subordinated.    This  is  the  most  impor- 


64  STRUCTURE 

tant  of  all  the  rules  of  briefing  because  upon  its  observance 
depends  the  logic  of  the  brief.  The  entire  purpose  of  the 
proof  of  an  argument  is  by  an  array  of  facts,  figures,  au- 
thorities, illustration,  and  methods  of  reasoning  to  con- 
vince the  mind  of  the  hearer  that  the  proposition  is  true. 
Anything  that  does  this  is  good,  and  if  it  is  important 
enough,  deserves  a  place  in  the  brief.  It  is  obvious,  how- 
ever, that  the  relation  of  every  fact  to  the  proof  of  the 
main  proposition  is  not  immediately  apparent.  The 
very  fact  that  we  divide  a  subject  into  main  issues  which 
are  themselves  proofs  of  the  main  proposition  is  indicative 
of  this  principle,  but  every  piece  of  evidence  tends  to 
prove  some  fact,  and  that  fact,  when  it  is  established, 
tends  to  prove  something  else,  and  so  on  through  a  chain 
of  reasoning  until  we  come  to  the  main  proposition  itself. 
It  follows  then  that  the  most  minute  subdivision  in  that 
part  of  the  brief  which  we  call  the  Proof  must  be  trace- 
able by  successive  steps  to  the  main  proposition.  It 
is  the  purpose  of  the  brief  to  enable  us  to  trace  this 
logical  chain  of  connection  because  it  is  by  tracing  it 
that  we  ascertain  whether  our  evidence  is  really  proba- 
tive or  not.  The  student  can  test  his  proof  and  be  ab- 
solutely sure  that  he  is  not  offering  any  false  arguments 
if  he  will  see  that  every  statement  in  his  brief  can  be 
traced  back  to  the  original  subject  by  a  series  of  steps  in 
which  every  subordinate  heading  proves  the  truth  of  the 
statement  to  which  it  is  subordinated.  If  the  brief  stands 
this  test,  even  though  it  violates  some  of  the  other  rules, 
it  will  be  of  some  logical  benefit;  but  if  it  violates  this  rule, 
even  though  it  adheres  to  all  the  others,  it  will  of  neces- 
sity be  illogical  and  confused.  This  rule  is  so  important 
that  we  may  call  it  "the  golden  rule  of  briefing." 


THE  BRIEF  65 

Rule  X.  The  main  headings  of  the  proof  should  be 
the  main  issues.  This  is  almost  a  corollary  of  the  ninth 
rule.  The  main  issues  are  the  first  subdivisions  of  the 
subject.  If  the  analysis  by  which  they  are  found  is  cor- 
rect, they  are  subordinate  statements  which  prove  the 
subject.  It  is  upon  the  proof  of  the  main  issues  that  the 
success  of  the  argument  depends.  It  is  evident,  therefore, 
that  when  we  come  to  that  part  of  the  brief  which  we  call 
the  Proof,  our  largest  subdivisions  will  be  the  main  issues. 

Rule  XI.  Refutation  should  be  designated  by  quoting 
with  a  negative  clause  the  argument  to  be  refuted. 

That  portion  of  the  proof  in  which  we  do  not  necessarily 
advance  our  own  side,  but  rather  are  engaged  in  answer- 
ing the  arguments  advanced  by  our  opponents,  is  called 
refutation.  It  is  destructive  as  opposed  to  construct- 
ive argument.  The  idea  to  be  refuted  may  be  of  great 
or  little  importance.  We  may  attack  the  main  issues 
of  our  opponent,  or  we  may  attack  a  minute  idea 
of  his  evidence.  Wherever  that  style  of  argument  occurs, 
however,  it  is  refutation.  While  clearness  is  greatly  to 
be  desired  in  all  parts  of  the  argument,  it  is  vitally  essen- 
tial in  the  refutation.  The  way  to  obtain  clearness  is  to 
be  careful  that  the  argument  which  you  are  refuting  is 
exactly  stated.  There  must  be  some  form  of  words  which 
will  always  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  it  is  destructive 
and  not  constructive  argument  that  is  being  offered. 
This  may  be  done  in  several  ways.    For  example : 

I.  Although  it  is  contended  that  woman  suffrage  has  not  been 
successful  in  Colorado,  yet  this  is  not  true,  because 
A.  Under  woman  suffrage  Colorado  has  passed  many  laws 
for  the  benefit  of  working  women. 


66  STRUCTURE 

or 

I,  It  is  not  true  that  woman  suffrage  has  not  been  successful  in 
Colorado,  because 
A.  Under  woman  suffrage  Colorado  has  passed  many  laws 
for  the  benefit  of  working  women,  etc. 

This  at  once  calls  attention  by  a  negative  clause,  it  is  not 
true  that,  to  the  introduction  of  something  which  has 
been  stated.  If  refutation  in  the  brief  is  introduced  in 
this  manner,  the  negative  statement  which  is  unusual  and 
which  can  occur  only  in  a  case  of  refutation  calls  atten- 
tion to  it  at  once,  and  prevents  any  misunderstanding  or 
confusion. 

Rule  XII.  The  conclusion  should  consist  of  a  state- 
ment of  the  main  issues  followed  by  an  affirmation  or 
denial  of  the  proposition  without  qualification.  After  you 
have  proved  your  case  all  that  remains  to  be  done  for  the 
sake  of  producing  an  effective  close  is  to  remind  your  hear- 
ers of  what  you  have  done,  and  call  to  their  attention  that 
it  was  the  task  which  you  set  out  to  do.  In  the  brief  this 
can  generally  be  expressed  by  a  mere  statement  of  the 
main  issues  followed  by  the  exact  statement  of  the  prop- 
osition without  qualification.  If  you  have  proved  your 
question,  you  have  proved  it  as  you  stated  it.  If  you  find 
at  the  end  of  your  brief  that  your  argument  has  not  con- 
vinced you,  and  that  you  wish  to  modify  the  original  state- 
ment or  qualify  it,  you  can  rest  assured  that  your  argu- 
ment will  not  convince  anyone  else.  Unless,  therefore,  you 
are  prepared  to  close  your  entire  brief  as  well  as  the  dis- 
cussion itself  by  the  assertion  of  the  proposition  exactly 
as  you  stated  it  at  the  beginning,  you  will  not  have  a  good 
brief.  If  you  find  that  you  are  unable  to  obey  this  rule, 
not  only  will  its  violation  tell  you  that  your  brief  is  not 


THE   BRIEF  67 

good,  but  it  will  also  be  a  sure  indication  that  the  argu- 
ment itself  has  not  fulfilled  its  purpose. 

RULES  FOR  BRIEFING 
General 

I.  A  brief  should  be  divided  into  three  parts  marked 
Introduction,  Proof,  and  Conclusion. 

II.  The  relation  of  ideas  in  the  brief  should  be  indicated 
by  indentations  into  main  headings  and  sub-headings. 

III.  The  relation  of  ideas  should  be  further  indicated 
by  a  uniform  system  of  symbols,  each  heading  being 
marked  by  one  and  only  one  symbol. 

IV.  Each  heading  should  be  phrased  as  a  complete 
statement. 

V.  Each  heading  should  contain  but  a  single  proposition 
or  idea. 

Introduction 

VI.  In  the  introduction  expository  briefing  should  be 
used,  in  which  each  heading  explains  or  is  a  division  of  the 
heading  to  which  it  is  subordinated. 

VII.  The  main  headings  of  the  introduction  should  be 
those  steps  in  the  analysis  necessary  for  an  intelligent 
reading  of  the  brief. 

VIII.  The  introduction  should  always  be  concluded 
with  the  main  issues. 

Proof 

IX.  In  the  proof  argumentative  briefing  should  be  used, 
in  which  each  heading  offers  proof  of  the  heading  to  which 
it  is  subordinated. 


68  STRUCTURE 

X.  The  main  headings  of  the  proof  should  be  the  main 
issues. 

XL  Refutation  should  be  designated  by  quoting  with 
a  negative  clause  the  argument  to  be  refuted. 

Conclusion 

XII.  The  conclusion  should  consist  of  a  statement  of 
the  main  issues  followed  by  an  afl&rmation  or  denial  of  the 
proposition  without  qualification. 


CHAPTER  VI 

EVIDENCE 

We  are  more  accustomed  to  consider  the  Declaration 

of   Independence  as  an  historical  document  than  as  a 

model  of  argumentative  composition,   yet  -.    .      .. 

if  the  student  of  argument  examines  it  from  of  Independ- 

the  second  standpoint,  he  will  find  that  it  ®^^®  ^^  ^^ 

argument 
is  not  only  admirable  on  account  of  the 

directness  and  force  of  its  style,  but  also  that  it  is  a 
model  of  clearness  on  account  of  its  construction.  We 
find  in  the  first  two  paragraphs  an  introduction  which 
finally  gives  a  clear  statement  of  the  main  issue  involved, 
that  the  present  king  of  Great  Britain  has  by  repeated 
injuries  and  usurpations  attempted  to  establish  an  abso- 
lute tyranny  over  the  colonies.  Then  we  find  this  signifi- 
cant sentence. — "To  prove  this,  let  facts  be  submitted 
to  a  candid  world." 

If  Thomas  Jefferson  in  this  appeal  to  mankind,  the  im- 
portance of  which  he  and  his  co-workers  could  not  have 
under-estimated,    and     which    they    drew 
with  a  care  that  is  not  often  given  to  such   ^^  proof 
compositions,  felt  that  it  was  necessary  to 
prove  his  assertion  by  facts,  how  can  the  student  of  argu- 
ment fail  to  recognize  the  necessity?    The  larger  part  of 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  is  a  categorical  state- 
ment of  facts  which  are  offered  in  proof  of  this  main  con- 
tention.   Yet  instructors  in  English  are  continually  called 

69 


70  SUBSTANCE 

upon  to  criticise  so-called  arguments  which  are  nothing 
but  a  series  of  general  statements  ha\'ing  as  their  only 
authority  the  opinion  of  the  writer  himself,  whose  lack 
of  knowledge  of  the  subject  is  only  too  apparent.  While 
it  is  most  important  that  the  student  should  carefully 
analyze  the  proposition  until  he  sees  clearly  and  can  make 
others  see  clearly  the  fundamental  points  upon  which  it 
rests,  his  task  is  then  only  partly  completed.  He  must 
next  address  himself  to  the  problem  of  proving  the  truth 
of  these  main  issues.  If  his  analysis  is  good,  his  hearers 
will  accept  it  and  are  ready  to  be  con\'inced,  but  they  are 
not  yet  convinced,  and  they  will  not  agree  with  him  if  he 
merely  asserts  his  contentions.  He  must  back  up  his 
issues  by  proof  in  order  to  bring  the  minds  of  his  hearers 
into  full  conformity  with  his  own.  Proof  therefore  may 
be  defined  as  that  which  convinces  the  mind,  or  if  we  wish 
for  a  longer  definition,  "Anything  which  serves  immedi- 
ately or  mediately  to  convince  the  mind  of  the  truth  or 
the  falsehood  of  a  fact  or  proposition."  ^  This  proof  is 
generally  made  up  of  numerous  component  parts.  Facts, 
figures,  illustrations,  opinions,  logical  inferences  are  all 
marshalled  to  show  that  the  proposition  contended  for 
is  true.  Each  by  itself  is  a  piece  of  evidence  the 
tendency  of  which  is  to  show  that  the  proposition  is 
true;  in  combination  with  other  factors  of  a  similar 
nature  it  makes  up  the  proof.  In  other  words,  evidence 
is  that  which  makes  the  proof,  or  better,  it  is  the  "ma- 
terial of  proof."  2  We  may  say  then  that  proof  is  that 
which  convinces  the  mind,  and  evidence  is  the  material  of 
proof. 

*  Best  on  Evidence,  page  5. 

*  Baker  &  Huntington,  page  69. 


EVIDENCE  71 

An  argument  that  is  without  evidence  is  assertive. 
Assertion  may  be  said  to  be  the  statement  of  an  un- 
supported   opinion.      Now    there    are    few 

AssGrtion 
people  whose  assertion  is  sufficient  to  con-    ^^^  proof 

vince  our  minds  upon  any  subject,  and  it  is 
safe  to  say  that  there  is  no  one  whose  unsupported  opinion 
upon  any  great  variety  of  subjects  is  conclusive.  For  the 
ordinary  man,  therefore,  to  rest  his  case  merely  upon  his 
own  opinion  is  fatal.  Our  minds  demand  not  only  that 
he  shall  state  that  a  thing  is  so,  but  that  he  shall  also  show 
us  why  it  is  so.  Yet  it  is  always  those  whose  opinions  are 
of  little  value  who  seem  to  be  most  insistent  in  offering 
them  to  the  world  without  support.  Socrates  became  so 
distrustful  of  himself  that  he  asserted  that  he  knew  noth- 
ing, but  it  is  safe  to  assume  that  at  the  same  time  the 
groves  of  Athens  resounded  with  the  clamor  of  lesser 
men  who  were  not  afraid  to  assert  their  opinions  upon 
almost  any  subject.  The  student  who  is  a  beginner  in 
argument  should  reahze,  therefore,  that  even  if  he  has 
read  extensively  upon  the  subject  and  has  thought  care- 
fully upon  it,  it  is  not  enough  for  him  to  state  the  result 
of  his  reading  and  his  thought  in  his  own  terms  and  expect 
it  to  be  received  by  his  hearers.  They  will  demand  that 
he  show  them  not  merely  his  opinion  upon  the  subject,  but 
to  a  greater  or  lesser  extent  those  facts  upon  which  he 
based  his  opinion  and  upon  which  they  will  be  justified  in 
following  him.  Mere  assertion  unsupported  by  evidence, 
even  if  it  be  shouted  from  the  housetops,  may  stifle  opposi- 
tion and  even  reduce  the  critic  and  judge  to  silence,  but 
it  does  not  convince  the  mind  and  this  is  the  purpose  of 
argument. 

The  consideration  of  evidence  presents  two  points  of 


72  SUBSTANCE 

view.  We  must  consider  both  the  nature  of  evidence 
itself  and  the  way  in  which  it  accomplishes  its  result,  or 
_  . ,  to  put  it  more  directly,  in  the  first  place, 

what  is  evidence,  and  in  the  second  place, 
how  does  it  work?  In  this  chapter  we  shall  consider  the 
first  of  these  propositions. 

Before  we  proceed  to  a  more  extended  consideration  of 
the  nature  of  evidence  we  must  free  our  minds  from  an 
Nature  of  ambiguity  in  the  use  of  the  word  itself.  It 
legal  evi-        is  perhaps  true  that  in  a  large  majority  of 

cases  m  which  the  word  evidence  comes  to 
our  attention  it  is  used  in  connection  with  legal  affairs. 
In  the  newspapers,  in  books  and  even  in  the  drama  we 
find  the  law  retaining  its  grip  upon  the  word,  and  we  are 
continually  told  that  such  a  fact  or  such  a  statement  is 
or  is  not  "evidence."  Such  statements  really  mean  that 
it  is  or  is  not  evidence  which  can  be  presented  in  a  court 
of  law  to  establish  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  a  fact  in  the 
mind  of  a  court  or  jury.  This  gives  a  very  restricted 
meaning  to  the  word.  There  are  numberless  reasons  why 
courts  of  law  have  limited  the  application  of  evidence. 
The  orderly  conduct  of  trials,  the  unreliability  of  human 
recollection,  the  demands  of  public  poUcy,  the  physical 
limitations  of  time  and  space,  and  other  things,  have  in- 
fluenced the  courts  in  limiting  the  kinds  of  evidence  which 
can  be  used.  The  mind  of  man  knows  no  such  limitations, 
and  will  consider  anything  which  tends  to  produce  a  con- 
viction as  to  the  truth  or  falsity  of  a  proposition.  For 
instance,  if  I  desire  to  know  the  contents  of  a  certain 
document,  I  may  well  satisfy  my  mind  by  calling  up  a 
friend  on  the  telephone  whom  I  know  to  have  seen  the 
document  and  asking  him  to  give  me  his  recollection  of 


EVIDENCE  73 

its  contents.  Relying  upon  his  statement  I  may  enter 
upon  business  undertakings  which  are  far  reaching  in  their 
results.  My  knowledge  of  my  friend's  character,  accuracy, 
and  opportunities  of  observation  may  be  sufficient  to 
convince  me  that  his  statement  is  for  practical  purposes 
as  satisfactory  as  a  perusal  of  the  document  itself.  Yet 
no  one  would  for  a  moment  think  that  a  judge  or  a  jury 
should  be  allowed  to  proceed  in  such  an  indirect  and  in- 
formal way.  The  rules  of  law  would  demand  that  the 
document  itself  be  produced,  and  would  not  permit  second- 
ary evidence  of  its  contents  until  the  court  was  satisfied 
that  it  was  not  possible  to  produce  it.  While,  therefore, 
the  rules  of  legal  evidence  are  doubtless  right  and  proper 
and  tend  in  the  long  run  to  the  establishment  of  truth 
and  justice,  and  while  the  fact  that  any  particular  piece 
of  evidence  could  not  be  produced  in  a  court  of  law  may 
warn  us  to  examine  it  closely  to  see  why  it  is  that  the  law 
rejects  it,  nevertheless  outside  the  courts  anything  that 
will  affect  my  mind  can  be  rightly  offered  to  me  to  pro- 
duce its  logical  result.  In  argument  we  are  not  concerned 
with  the  admissibility  of  evidence.  All  evidence  is  ad- 
missible, and  we  have  only  to  consider  the  effect  it  will 
produce. 

The  natural  tendency  of  students  in  schools  and  col- 
leges when  they  are  called  upon  to  prove  a  proposition 
seems  to  be  to  substitute   the  opinion  of    Argument 
some  other  person,  in  whom  they  have  con-    from  au- 
fidence,  for  their  own.    If  you  ask  a  college         "^ 
student  why  a  thing  is  so,  he  is  very  apt  to  reply,  "Pro- 
fessor X  said  so  in  his  lecture  last  Monday,"  or  "Pro- 
fessor X  says  so  in  his  book."    In  other  words,  when  you 
question  his  assertion,  he  falls  back  upon  the  assertion 


74  SUBSTANCE 

of  some  other  person  in  whom  he  thinks  you  will  have 
more  confidence.  Now  while  a  too  close  adherence  to 
this  method  of  proof  is  not  conducive  of  the  best  results, 
nevertheless  the  mere  assertions  of  certain  people  are  en- 
titled to  consideration,  and  can  be  offered  in  evidence.  If 
I  am  seeking  to  ascertain  the  truth  or  falsity  of  a  proposi- 
tion, the  words  of  some  one  who  I  know  has  given  atten- 
tion to  it,  and  who  is  probably  better  acquainted  with 
the  subject  that  I  am  does  produce  an  effect  upon  my 
mind  and  is  consequently  evidence.  It  is  therefore  a  sort 
of  exception  to  the  general  rule  that  assertion  is  not  proof. 
When  we  seek  in  this  way  to  convince  the  mind  by 
imposing  upon  it  the  opinion  of  some  third  person  rather 

than  by  a  process  of  logic,  we  are  said  to 
Nature  of  /  ,.  .7      •.         rr.^ 

the  argu-         use    the    argument   from    authority.       ihe 

ment  from  strength  of  the  argument  from  authority 
is  found  in  the  fact  that  it  presents  to  our 
hearers  the  opinion  of  some  one  whom  they  recognize  as 
having  a  greater  intellectual  attainment  upon  the  specific 
subject  than  the  hearers  themselves  possess.  The  weak- 
ness of  the  argument  from  authority  is  that  it  does  not  in 
reality  change  the  mind  of  our  hearers.  No  logical  process 
is  involved.  The  hearers  merely  substitute  another  man's 
opinion  for  their  own,  and  while  they  are  in  that  position 
are  particularly  susceptible  to  argument.  If  we  work 
out  for  ourselves  from  experiment  or  otherwise  a  theory 
or  belief,  it  becomes  ours.  It  is  the  child  of  our  own  brain 
and  we  are  naturally  jealous  of  any  attack  upon  it.  We 
can  be  convinced  that  it  is  false  only  by  the  most  convinc- 
ing testimony  and  reason.  A  belief  that  we  receive  from 
the  mind  of  another  is  at  the  best  only  an  adopted  child, 
and  we  are  ready  to  change  it  whenever  a  greater  au- 


EVIDENCE  75 

thority  appears,  or  whenever  it  is  attacked  by  logical 
argument.  While,  therefore,  the  argument  from  authority 
is  a  proper  and  valid  argument  to  use,  the  student  of  argu- 
ment is  warned  that  its  continued  use  to  the  exclusion  of  all 
other  kinds  of  evidence  will  give  to  any  argument  an 
academic  tinge,  and  will  in  the  minds  of  practical  men 
detract  from  its  force. 

The  value  of  the  argument  from  authority  naturally 
depends  upon  the  source  from  which  the  statement  comes. 
To  test  it,  therefore,  we  should  test  the    -,    f    f  fi. 
source  itself,   and  should   test  it  in  three    argument 

different  ways.     First,  what  is  the  promi-    'f°°^  ^^" 

^    ,  ,      •       .       ,         •    ,      .  thority 

nence  of  the  authority  m  the  mmds  of  our 

hearers?  Second,  has  the  authority  knowledge  of  the  sub- 
ject under  discussion?  Third,  is  the  authority  biased  on 
the  question? 

With  regard  to  the  first  of  these  questions  it  is  evident 
that  the  value  of  our  authority  depends  largely  upon  the 
recognition  which  he  obtains  from  our  Reputa- 
hearers.  Mr.  Smith  and  the  President  of  tion  of  the 
the  United  States  may  have  the  same  opinion  ^^  °"  ^ 
upon  certain  questions,  and  Mr.  Smith  may  be  as  well 
able  to  express  his  opinion  as  the  President,  but  none  of  us 
will  pay  any  attention  to  his  opinion  while  we  will  care- 
fully consider  that  of  the  President  of  the  United  States. 
The  trouble  with  Mr.  Smith  is  that  we  can  see  no  reason 
why  we  should  believe  him  more  than  any  other  man,  but 
we  do  realize  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  must 
be  a  man  of  such  character  and  attainment  that  his  opinion 
upon  almost  any  subject,  if  he  is  willing  to  express  it,  de- 
serves consideration.  The  first  thing  therefore  with  re- 
gard to  the  position  of  our  authority  must  be  his  promi- 


76  SUBSTANCE 

nence,  and  if  the  authority  is  not  prominent,  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  writer  to  see  that  he  is  properiy  introduced.  The 
authority  is  better  if  no  introduction  is  necessary,  that 
is,  if  our  hearers  at  once  recognize  his  claim  to  considera- 
tion. Still  there  are  many  men  whose  opinions  are  entitled 
to  weight  in  particular  subjects,  but  whose  prominence 
in  those  subjects  is  known  only  to  a  hmited  circle.  To  the 
general  public,  for  example,  the  name  of  Horace  Howard 
Fumess  conveys  but  little,  yet  students  of  Shakespeare 
would  at  once  recognize  the  foremost  Shakespearean 
scholar  and  critic  of  the  last  half  century,  A  speaker 
addressing  an  audience  of  ordinarily  educated  people 
might  fail  to  make  his  point  if,  in  quoting  Doctor 
Fumess,  he  mentioned  him  merely  by  name.  If,  how- 
ever, he  should  tell  the  same  audience  in  a  sentence 
or  two,  or  even  in  a  phrase,  the  claim  to  consideration  that 
Doctor  Furness  possessed  when  writing  on  this  particular 
subject,  the  evidence  would  have  great  weight.  It  fol- 
lows, therefore,  that  our  authority  must  be  prominent,  and 
if  his  prominence  is  not  at  once  apparent  to  the  audience, 
they  should  be  informed  of  it  by  a  proper  introduction. 
Not  only  must  the  authority  be  prominent  but  his  promi- 
nence must  be  of  the  right  kind.  There  is  a  difference 
between  fame  and  notoriety,  and  because  a  man  is  widely 
known  h'e  is  not  necessarily  widely  esteemed.  No  matter 
how  prominent  a  man  is,  if  he  is  known  as  a  charlatan, 
or  as  being  superficial  or  untruthful,  his  testimony  will 
naturally  carry  but  little  weight.  It  is  related  that 
Benjamin  F.  Butler  was  once  arguing  against  Judge  Hoar 
in  Massachusetts.  Desiring  to  emphasize  in  the  course 
of  his  argument  the  value  which  every  one  places  upon 
human  hfe,  he  quoted,  as  he  said,  from  the  Scriptures, 


EVIDENCE  77 

"All  that  a  man  hath  will  he  give  for  his  life."  In  reply- 
Judge  Hoar  facetiously  questioned  the  character  of  the 
authority,  and  reminded  his  hearers  that  while  it  was  true 
that  the  sentence  in  question  was  found  in  the  Scriptures, 
they  should  remember  that  it  was  there  set  down  as  hav- 
ing proceeded  from  the  mouth  of  Satan.  In  other  words, 
while  Mr.  Butler's  authority  was  prominent,  it  was  prom- 
inence of  the  wrong  kind. 

We  now  pass  to  the  second  consideration  with  regard 
to  the  value  of  an  authority,  that  is,  the  knowledge  of  the 
subject  which  he  possesses.  It  requires  no  Knowledge 
demonstration  to  show  that  no  matter  how  of  the  au- 
illustrious  and  how  upright  in  character  a  °"^ 
man  may  be,  his  opinion  camiot  be  of  value  upon  many 
subjects.  After  all,  a  big  name  or  a  high  character  will 
not  convince  us  unless  we  feel  that  the  man  knows  more 
than  the  general  run  of  people  upon  the  particular  matter 
under  discussion.  Yet  we  see  continually  in  the  adver- 
tising columns  of  the  newspapers,  and  sometimes  in  the 
news  columns  as  well,  interviews  and  opinions  which  are 
offered  to  the  public  for  the  purpose  of  convincing  them 
that  something  is  true  because  some  illustrious  person 
says  so.  We  are  told  that  a  celebrated  author  smokes  so 
and  so's  cigars,  or  that  a  prominent  ball  player  wears 
somebody's  hose  supporters,  or  that  a  celebrated  divine 
has  bought  such  and  such  a  graphophone.  Apparently 
this  sort  of  advertising  pays  or  it  would  not  be  continued, 
but  as  a  matter  of  argument  the  evidence  is  useless.  A 
man  may  know  much  about  poetry  and  little  about  to- 
bacco, or  he  may  be  worth  ten  thousand  dollars  a  year 
as  a  professional  ball  player  and  not  worth  ten  cents  as  a 
judge  of  hose  supporters,  or  his  opinion  with  regard  to 


78  SUBSTANCE 

theology  may  be  of  great  value  and  his  knowledge  of  music 
worthless.  No  error  is  more  commonly  committed  even 
by  people  who  should  know  better  than  this  offering  a 
man  as  an  authority  because  he  happens  to  be  great, 
without  inquiring  whether  he  has  special  knowledge  upon 
the  subject.  It  is  far  better  to  use  as  an  authority  a  man 
whose  position  requires  explanation  than  it  is  to  use  one 
whose  prominence  is  at  once  recognized,  but  whose  lack 
of  knowledge  of  the  subject  is  as  apparent  as  his  promi- 
nence. If  we  wish  to  put  it  in  mathematical  terms,  the 
value  of  an  authority  varies  directly  not  only  with  his 
prominence  but  also  with  his  knowledge  of  the  subject 
under  discussion. 

In  addition  to  the  prominence  of  our  authority  and  his 
knowledge  of  the  subject  we  must  also  take  into  considera- 
tion his  bias.  This  brings  us  to  a  dilemma 
the  authoritv  which  frequently  arises  in  the  use  of  an 
authority.  We  have  seen  that  familiarity 
with  the  subject  is  necessary,  but  this  very  famiharity 
generally  creates  strong  beliefs  one  way  or  the  other.  We 
may  therefore  find  that  while  our  authority  is  highly  es- 
teemed, and  is  universally  admitted  to  know  what  he  is 
talking  about,  he  has  become  so  identified  with  one  side 
of  the  question  that  his  opinion  loses  weight  because  of 
his  bias.  It  does  not  follow  that  he  cannot  be  right,  or 
that  his  opinion  should  not  be  offered,  but  it  is  true  that 
in  so  far  as  he  is  biased  he  is  less  likely  to  have  formed 
accurate  ideas  because  his  preferences  naturally  lead  him 
to  exaggerate.  Therefore,  when  his  opinion  is  offered,  it 
will  frequently  be  less  convincing  than  the  opinion  of  a 
man  of  lesser  prominence  and  possibly  of  lesser  knowledge 
who  can  approach  the  subject  with  an  open  mind.    For 


EVIDENCE  79 

example,  probably  the  opinion  of  no  man  in  the  United 
States  upon  educational  matters  is  worthy  of  more  con- 
sideration that  that  of  Doctor  EUot,  the  president  emeritus 
of  Harvard  University,  and  if  we  were  discussing  the  so- 
called  elective  system  in  education,  the  advocates  of 
that  system  would  rightfully  consider  his  opinions  evidence 
of  great  weight.  He  fulfils  the  other  tests  which  we  have 
prescribed.  He  is  prominent  in  the  public  eye,  and  is 
recognized  as  being  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  subject 
by  every  one,  and  yet  the  opponents  of  the  elective  sys- 
tem would  rightly  point  out  that  as  the  leading  ex- 
ponent of  the  system  he  may  be  prejudiced  in  its  favor. 
An  authority  need  not  be  dismissed  from  considera- 
tion because  he  is  biased;  absolutely  unbiased  persons 
are  hard  to  find.  It  would  be  a  peculiar  mind  indeed 
that  could  study  deeply  into  a  question  and  form  no 
opinions  upon  it.  Nevertheless,  human  nature  is  such 
that  a  person  having  an  opinion  is  insensibly  prejudiced 
in  its  favor.  The  question  to  be  decided  in  using  such 
an  authority  is  to  what  extent  the  bias  impairs  the  value 
of  the  testimony. 

In  summing  up  we  find  that  the  perfect  authority  should 
be  acceptable  to  our  hearers  both  because  of  his  promi- 
nence in  the  pubUc  eye  and  because  of  his    ^ 

'■  ''  Summary 

good  character;  that  he  should  be  familiar  to  of  the  argu- 
the  last  degree  with  the  subject  upon  which  ^^^^t  from 
he  is  giving  his  opinion;  and  that  he  should 
be  without  bias  upon  the  matter  discussed.  A  person 
who  fulfilled  all  those  requirements  would  be  an  ideal 
authority.  Unfortunately  such  persons  are  hard  to  find, 
but  in  so  far  as  our  authorities  depart  from  these  specifica- 
tions their  evidence  is  weakened,  and  it  is  for  the  student 


80  SUBSTANCE 

of  argument  to  decide  at  what  point  the  value  of  the 
opinion  is  lost. 

The  evidence  offered  by  the  argument  from  authority- 
does  not  affect  the  logical  process  of  the  mind;  we  merely 

accept  the  opinions  of  other  people  upon  faith 
evMence  ^  *^^^^  accuracy.    We  now  come  to  consider 

the  main  body  of  evidence  to  which  the 
foregoing  is  an  exception,  and  we  are  at  once  confronted 
with  a  natural  division  which  it  is  important  to  under- 
stand. If  we  are  trying  to  prove  any  proposition,  we  can 
offer  proof  in  two  ways,  either  to  the  fact  itself  that  we 
are  trying  to  establish,  or  to  some  other  fact  from  which 
we  argue  that  an  inference  should  be  drawn.  If  a  man  is 
accused  of  murder,  the  govermnent  might  offer  a  witness 
who  would  testify  that  he  saw  the  murderer  and  his 
victim  struggling  together  and  actually  saw  the  blow 
struck  which  caused  the  death,  and  they  might  also 
offer  a  witness  who  would  testify  that  he  saw  the  mur- 
derer running  away  from  the  spot  with  blood  upon  his 
hands.  The  first  evidence  we  would  call  direct;  that  is, 
it  is  evidence  which  convinces  us  without  our  using  any 
process  of  reasoning  in  our  own  minds.  The  second  we 
would  call  circumstantial  because  it  is  indirect  evidence 
of  the  crime  itself,  but  direct  evidence  of  a  fact  from 
which  we,  by  a  process  of  reasoning,  infer  that  the  crime 
was  committed  by  the  person  accused.^  Direct  evidence, 
then,  is  evidence  which  is  offered  to  establish  the  fact  itself. 
Circumstantial  evidence  is  evidence  which  is  offered  to 

1  We  use  the  terms  "direct"  and  "circumstantial"  in  their  ordi- 
nary meaning.  For  a  more  accurate  distinction  of  direct  and  in- 
direct evidence  from  testimonial  and  circumstantial,  see  Baker  and 
Huntington,  Principles  of  Argumentation,  page  84. 


EVIDENCE  81 

establish  some  other  fact  from  which  by  logical  reasoning 
the  fact  itself  may  be  inferred. 

There  has  been  much  controversy  as  to  the  value  of  the 
two  kinds  of  evidence,  and  unthinking  people  frequently 
refer  to  circumstantial  as  being  less  trust-    pgi„i.-„g 
worthy  than  direct.     It  is  often  said  that    value    of 

men  ought  not  to  be  convicted  of  capital    these  kinds 
°  .  1        .  1  1         o^   evidence 

offences  upon  circumstantial  evidence  be- 
cause if  no  one  has  seen  the  crime  committed,  there  always 
must  be  some  doubt  with  regard  to  it.  This  prejudice  is 
entirely  unwarranted.  The  test  of  evidence  is  not  whether 
it  is  direct  or  circumstantial,  but  whether  it  is  convincing. 
Neither  kind  is  better  than  the  other  because  both  have 
their  good  and  their  bad  points.  It  is  true  that  direct 
evidence  leaves  no  opportunity  for  error  in  drawing  in- 
ferences. If  a  witness  testifies  that  he  saw  a  man  stabbed, 
fall  down,  and  that  afterwards  he  discovered  that  the 
man  was  dead,  there  can  be  no  mistake  in  a  conviction 
provided  the  witness  is  testifying  to  the  truth.  It  is  that 
proviso,  however,  which  reveals  the  weakness  of  direct 
evidence.  If  it  is  unaccompanied  by  anything  circum- 
stantial, the  conclusion  must  rest  entirely  upon  the  ac- 
curacy of  the  witness.  If  he  is  lying  or  is  mistaken,  the 
testimony  is  valueless.  The  strength  of  direct  evidence, 
then,  lies  in  the  fact  that  no  mistake  can  be  made  in  draw- 
ing the  inference;  its  weakness  lies  in  the  fallibility  of 
humanity.  Circumstantial  evidence,  on  the  other  hand, 
is  strong  because  it  eliminates  human  fallibility  to  a 
marked  degree,  and  weak  because  it  depends  upon  the 
ability  of  the  human  mind  to  reason  correctly.  In  the 
example  which  we  have  used,  it  would  be  no  less  convinc- 
ing if  instead  of  producing  a  direct  witness  of  the  murder, 


82  SUBSTANCE 

the  government  had  produced  a  number  of  witnesses  who 
estabUshed  these  facts :  that  the  accused  person  had  reason 
to  hate  his  victim;  that  a  loiife  which  he  bought  a  few  days 
previous  was  found  beside  the  body;  that  he  had  been  dis- 
covered wiping  blood  from  his  hands  a  few  minutes  after 
the  tragedy  occurred;  that  footprints  were  found  in  the 
earth  which  showed  that  a  struggle  had  taken  place,  and 
that  the  boots  worn  by  the  accused  exactly  fitted  these 
footprints;  and  that  the  murdered  man's  watch  was 
found  in  his  possession.  Few  of  us  would  not  be  con- 
vinced by  such  an  array  of  evidence  from  a  half  dozen 
different  witnesses  because  we  would  reason  and  reason 
rightly  that  while  one  of  these  people  might  be  mistaken 
and  while  one  of  these  facts  might  be  possible  of  explana- 
tion, together  the  facts  form  a  chain  of  circumstances 
which  is  thoroughly  convincing.  It  seems,  therefore,  that 
the  value  of  evidence  is  not  to  be  measured  by  whether 
it  is  direct  or  circumstantial.  Either  is  good;  neither  is 
better.  In  the  one  case  you  have  to  fear  the  unreliability 
of  human  testimony,  and  in  the  other  the  unreliability 
of  human  reasoning. 

We  have  now  to  consider  what  are  the  tests  of  evidence. 
In  considering  this  matter  the  first  thing  to  keep  in  mind 
is  the  fact  that  in  argument  the  ultimate 
evidence  ^^^^  ^^  ^^^^  effect  that  the  evidence  produces 

upon  the  mind  of  the  person  to  whom  it  is 
addressed.  The  evidence  that  produces  conviction  is  the 
evidence  that  is  of  value,  and  it  is  of  no  avail  for  us  to 
comfort  ourselves  after  defeat  with  the  reflection  that 
we  ought  to  have  been  successful.  If  we  have  an  un- 
prejudiced critic  or  an  unprejudiced  tribunal,  the  fact 
that  we  were  not  successful  is  a  sure  indication,  as  far  as 


EVIDENCE  83 

it  depends  upon  the  evidence,  that  we  have  been  unsuc- 
cessful in  our  proof.  The  adage  that  the  "proof  of  the 
pudding  is  in  the  eating"  is  an  accurate  statement  of  this 
general  test.  The  student  of  argument  should  endeavor 
to  keep  clear  in  his  mind  the  effect  that  was  produced  upon 
him  when  he  first  came  across  the  evidence  that  he  is 
going  to  use.  If  it  seemed  to  him  strong,  it  is  more  hkely 
to  seem  strong  to  his  hearers.  If  it  seemed  weak  to  him, 
its  weakness  will  be  apparent  to  them. 

Perhaps  the  first  question  that  your  hearers  will  ask  is 
"Do  we  believe  this?"  and  they  will  not  believe  it  if  it 
seems  to  them  inconsistent.     It  can  be  in- 
consistent in  three  ways.    In  the  first  place,     consistency 
it  can  be  inconsistent  with  itself.     In  the 
second  place,  it  can  be  inconsistent  with  other  evidence 
which  you  have  offered.     In  the  third  place,  it  can  be 
inconsistent  with  human  judgment. 

It  would  seem  unUkely  that  anyone  would  make  the 

mistake  of  offering  evidence  that  is  upon  the  face  of  it 

wrong,  and  yet  we  frequently  find  just  this 

error  being  committed.     Not  long  ago  a    ^?  }^  ^°'^".., 
°  .        .      sistent  with 

newspaper  armounced  the  discovery  of  graft    itself? 

in  certain  public  works  amounting  to  "mil- 
lions of  dollars,"  and  yet  in  the  very  same  article  and 
within  a  few  lines  of  where  the  statement  was  made  gave 
the  entire  amount  paid  for  the  work  in  question  as  less  than 
a  million  dollars.  It  would  seem  that  the  most  superficial 
mind  could  not  be  convinced  by  evidence  of  this  sort,  and 
yet  we  know  that  such  statements,  unless  carefully  ana- 
lyzed, do  have  a  certain  effect.  Unfortunately  this  lack  of 
consistency  is  not  always  as  apparent  as  in  the  case  given, 
but  it  does  not  require  much  thought  to  expose  the  incon- 


84  SUBSTANCE 

sistency  of  such  an  argument  as  this  which  was  advanced 
by  reasonably  intelligent  students  who  were  in  favor  of 
organized  cheering  at  athletic  games.  They  claimed  that 
organized  cheering  should  be  allowed  because  it  tended  to 
encourage  the  players  to  do  their  utmost,  and  that  it  really 
had  no  evil  effect  upon  the  other  side  because  experience 
had  shown  that  in  the  excitement  of  a  college  game  the 
players  did  not  notice  the  cheering.  A  more  naive  form  of 
it  is  found  in  the  statement  of  the  student  who  breathlessly 
ran  up  to  his  instructor  upon  the  street  and  said,  "Oh, 
Professor  X,  I  have  done  nothing  but  look  for  you  for  the 
last  two  days.  I  wanted  to  see  if  you  would  not  give  me 
a  twenty-four  hour  extension  upon  the  thesis  which  is 
due  this  afternoon."  A  somewhat  more  subtle  example 
is  this:  "Among  the  ruins  of  Pompeii  was  found  a  coin 
bearing  the  date  200  B.  C."  This  error  is  more  often 
committed,  however,  where  the  testimony  is  complex  in 
its  character.  A  statement  may  be  offered  in  which 
many  facts  and  inferences  are  combined,  and  the  final 
decision  of  the  person  offering  it  may  seem  at  first 
to  be  worthy  of  belief.  A  careful  analysis  of  the  state- 
ment, nevertheless,  may  show  that  the  conclusions  drawn 
are  inconsistent  with  the  statement  itself.  We  find  there- 
fore that  if  in  any  evidence,  whether  simple  or  complex, 
there  is  a  manifest  inconsistency,  the  evidence  is  not 
trustworthy  and  must  be  disregarded  in  so  far  as  the  in- 
consistency affects  its  validity. 

Not  only  must  evidence  be  consistent  with  itself,  but 
it  must  be  consistent  with  the  other  known  facts  in  the 
case.  In  criminal  investigations  the  inexperienced  fre- 
quently err  through  not  observing  this  rule.  Having  in 
mind  that  a  crime  has  been  committed  and  that  the 


EVIDENCE  85 

person  who  has  committed  it  is  obviously  of  evil  intent, 

they  grasp  eagerly  at  any  evil  fact  as  proof  that  their 

preconceived  theory  of  the  crime  is  correct,     ,    . 

and  not  infrequently  end  up  by  proving  to    sistent  with 

their  own  satisfaction  that  their  supposed     ^^®   other 

facts? 
criminal  has  committed  two  different  acts 

which  are  inconsistent  with  each  other.  Sir  Arthur  Conan 
Doyle  in  his  Sherlock  Holmes  stories  calls  attention  to 
this  error  when  he  warns  his  colleague  Watson  against 
attributing  to  the  same  man  acts  which  could  only  be 
accomplished  by  men  of  different  mental  capabilities. 
He  points  out  that  it  is  inconsistent  to  suppose  that  a 
man  will  commit  a  crime  which  calls  for  a  high  order  of 
mentality  and  at  the  same  time  act  with  infantile  sim- 
phcity  in  other  respects.  Students,  however,  are  not 
ordinarily  engaged  in  criminal  research  and  more  often 
fall  into  this  error  by  a  desire  to  adopt  too  many  good 
arguments.  Any  question  of  large  importance  which  is 
much  disputed  is  hkely  to  offer  many  opportunities  for 
committing  this  error.  Probably  no  question  before  the 
people  of  this  country  has  excited  so  much  argument  as 
the  question  of  the  advisability  of  maintaining  our  pro- 
tective tariff.  Many  able  minds  have  been  in  favor  of  the 
policy  of  protection  and  many  able  arguments  have  been 
written  and  spoken  in  its  favor,  yet  they  were  made  by 
different  people  who  had  different  points  of  view.  If  we 
collect  our  evidence  indiscriminately,  we  may  find  that 
the  statements  of  one  speaker  who  believes  in  a  certain 
high  tariff  for  protection  are  inconsistent  with  the  state- 
ments of  another  who  believes  in  the  same  tariff  for  reve- 
nue only.  Each  of  these  views  may  be  advanced  with 
sincerity,  and  each  undoubtedly  can  be  supported  by  able 


86  SUBSTANCE 

arguments,  but  as  the  two  positions  are  inconsistent  with 
each  other,  so  the  evidence  which  is  offered  to  support 
them  may,  unless  carefully  scrutinized,  prove  equally 
inconsistent.  We  must  be  careful,  therefore,  not  to  allow 
ourselves  to  be  put  in  a  position  where  we  are  compelled 
to  use  evidence  that  is  inconsistent  with  the  facts  which 
we  have  already  estabhshed. 

The  third  inconsistency  in  evidence  is  inconsistency 
with  human  experience.  People  will  not  believe  evidence 
Is  it  incon-  "^'^^^^  ^^^^  ^^^  seem  probably  or  possibly 
sistent  with    true.     Nothing  was  more  characteristic  of 

human  ^j^g  nineteenth  century  than  the  rapidity 

6xp6n6nc6r  t.        ^y 

with  which  people  discarded  views  which 

depended  solely  upon  assertion  when  those  assertions 
were  contrary  to  human  experience.  For  centuries 
people  without  much  question  had  accepted  as  facts 
all  sorts  of  supernatural  and  miraculous  events  and 
superstitions,  but  as  human  thought  grew  clearer  they 
began  to  apply  this  test  which  we  may  perhaps  call  the 
test  of  probabiUty.  It  became  difficult  for  men  to  beUeve, 
for  instance,  that  Joshua  could  command  the  sun  to  stand 
still  and  have  it  obey  him  when  they  realized  that  such  a 
phenomenon  was  entirely  contrary  to  everything  else 
that  they  had  ever  known.  At  the  present  time  this  pro- 
test against  the  improbable  has  reached  a  point  where  it 
sometimes  seems  that  the  entire  community  is  over- 
sceptical.  Nothing  that  is  at  all  strange  seems  to  be  ac- 
cepted as  true  even  upon  the  testimony  of  the  most  fault- 
less authority.  It  seems  therefore  that  if  the  evidence 
that  we  wish  to  offer  is  upon  the  face  of  it  improbable, 
we  must  either  be  prepared  to  prove  its  truth  as  an  in- 
dependent proposition,  or  else  reaUze  that  it  will  have  but 


EVIDENCE  87 

little  effect.  Yet  where  our  argument  deals  with  the 
abolition  of  an  accepted  error  much  of  the  evidence  will 
at  first  glance  seem  improbable.  All  that  can  be  said  with 
regard  to  the  use  of  evidence  that  is  inconsistent  with 
human  experience  is  this, — it  is  far  better  to  use  evidence 
that  your  hearers  will  accept  as  true  than  to  use  evidence 
which  they  do  not  at  first  believe,  and  the  truth  of  which 
you  have  to  prove.  It  is  unwise  to  burden  yourself  with 
the  double  task  of  proving  not  only  your  proposition  but 
also  the  evidence  by  which  you  prove  the  proposition. 
But  evidence  is  something  that  exists  and  not  something 
that  we  invent.  We  have  to  take  things  as  we  find  them, 
and  it  may  be  that  the  only  way  to  prove  a  new  truth  is 
by  evidence  which  is  apparently,  though  not  really,  in- 
consistent with  human  experience. 

If  our  evidence,  then,  is  consistent  with  itself,  and  does 
not  contradict  any  other  fact  upon  which  we  are  depend- 
ing, and  does  not  seem  to  be  at  odds  with  the  Summary  of 
general  views  of  mankind,  we  can  consider  the  tests  of 
that  it  is  acceptable  from  the  standpoint  of 
consistency,  and  that  it  will  itself  appeal  to  our  hearers. 

Consistency,  however,  is  not  the  only  test  of  evidence. 

The  mind  may  not  see  anything  wrong  in  the  evidence 

itself,  but  may  see  considerable  to  criticise    Tests  of  the 

in  the  source  from  which  it  comes.     While    source   of 

evidence 
good  evidence  may  come  from  a  poor  source, 

it  is  true  that  if  we  have  not  confidence  in  its  source,  we 

doubt  its  value.    Much  we  have  said  with  regard  to  the 

argument  from  authority  applies  in  testing  the  source  of 

evidence,  but  the  problem  is  to  some  degree  different.    The 

argument  from  authority  consists  of  the  opinion  of  the 

person  testifying,  whereas  evidence,  with  the  exception 


88  SUBSTANCE 

of  the  argument  from  authority,  consists  of  facts  stated 
by  the  person  testifying.  We  therefore  ask  four  questions, 
all  designed  to  test  the  reliability  of  the  source  in  order 
that  we  may  know  whether  we  can  depend  upon  the  ac- 
curacy of  the  fact.  The  four  questions  to  be  asked  con- 
cerning the  source  of  evidence  are: — 

1.  Is  the  source  truthful? 

2.  Has  the  source  opportunity  of  knowing  the  fact? 

3.  Has  the  source  capability  of  understanding? 

4.  Does  the  bias  of  the  source  affect  the  statement  of  the 
fact? 

With  regard  to  the  first  question  the  objection  to  an 
untruthful  witness  is  at  once  apparent.    While  the  maxim, 

"False  in  one  thing,  false  in  all,"  is  not  liter- 
tru^ul?^^'^^    ally  true,  it  is  a  fact  that  if  the  human  mind 

finds  that  it  has  been  deceived  once,  it  is 
very  slow  to  accept  any  further  statements  from  the  same 
source.  There  is  perhaps  no  more  effective  way  to  destroy 
arguments  than  to  show  that  in  other  instances  the  op- 
ponents have  been  wrong.  Fortunately  deliberate  lying 
in  argument  is  comparatively  rare,  and  is  generally 
easily  detected,  but  careless  misstatements  unfortunately 
are  not  unusual.  For  instance,  a  student  arguing  in  favor 
of  the  recall  of  public  officials,  a  principle  in  which  he 
strongly  believes,  announces  that  "office  holders  in  the 
United  States  are  nearly  all  corrupt,"  and  is  much  sur- 
prised to  find  that  he  has  made  a  statement  which 
is  the  exact  opposite  of  the  truth.  Another  arguing 
against  prohibition  alluded  to  Portland,  Maine,  and  one 
or  two  smaller  cities.  It  developed  later  in  the  argu- 
ment that  one  of  the  smaller  cities  was  Cambridge, 
Massachusetts,  the  population  of  which  is  about  double 


EVIDENCE  89 

that  of  Portland.  Still  another,  deeply  impressed  with 
the  necessity  of  legal  reform,  stated  that  the  average 
case  in  court  occupied  from  three  to  five  years,  where- 
as the  facts  demonstrated  that  a  case  that  extends 
through  two  j^ears  is  far  above  the  average.  Each  of  these 
three  mistakes  was  made  because  the  writer  was  careless 
with  the  truth,  and  not  necessarily  untruthful,  and  each 
being  detected  raised  a  doubt  as  to  the  accuracy  of  the 
rest  of  the  writer's  work.  In  each  case  "the  wish  was 
father  to  the  thought,"  and  the  evidence  depended  upon 
was  manufactured  carelessly  to  meet  a  preconceived  idea. 
When  applied  to  the  facts  of  everyday  life,  the  amount  of 
inaccuracy  that  is  offered  at  every  hand  is  remarkable. 
The  fish  that  is  lost  is  always  the  biggest  fish  of  the  day 
not  only  in  the  pictures  of  the  professional  humorist,  but 
really  in  the  accounts  of  our  own  friends.  We  complain 
that  we  had  to  wait  half  an  hour  for  a  car  when  we  really 
did  not  have  to  wait  ten  minutes,  or  that  we  got  only  a  few 
minutes'  sleep  when,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  we  slept  through 
the  greater  part  of  the  night.  This  does  not  mean  that 
the  world  is  bad,  but  it  does  mean  that  humanity  is  woe- 
fully inaccurate,  and  when  we  make  such  careless  state- 
ments the  basis  of  sober  argument,  we  will  sooner  or  later 
suffer  the  consequences.  The  person  who  gets  in  the  habit 
of  reckless  assertion  soon  is  marked  among  his  fellows,  and 
all  his  statements  lose  weight  because  they  are  suspected  of 
being  inaccurate.  In  testing  our  own  or  our  opponents' 
evidence  the  first  question  to  ask  is,  therefore,  whether  the 
source  of  testimony  is  habitually  accurate?  If  it  is  not,  we 
cannot  say  that  the  statement  is  untrue,  but  we  can  say 
that  it  may  be  untrue,  which  detracts  much  from  its 
usefulness 


90  SUBSTANCE 

The  second  question  does  not  relate  to  the  character  of 
the  source,  but  to  the  opportunity  for  obtaining  correct 

information.  A  man  may  be  ever  so  honest 
source  op-  ^^^^  ^^^^  ^^  accurate,  and  yet  his  evidence 
portunity  may  be  of  httle  value  because  it  is  at  once 

the  fact?^^      evident  that  he  had  little  or  no  opportunity 

of  observing  at  first  hand  the  facts  to  which 
he  is  testifying.  This  is  especially  noticeable  in  debates  in 
public  assemblies.  Students  who  habitually  take  state- 
ments made  by  senators  and  representatives  as  published  in 
the  Congressional  Record  as  evidence  of  the  highest  type 
will  do  well  to  apply  this  test  to  the  facts  which  they 
find.  A  httle  thought  will  show  them  that  the  bald  state- 
ment of  the  senator  from  Missouri,  for  instance,  who  per- 
haps never  saw  salt  water  until  he  came  to  Washington, 
may  not  be  of  the  highest  value  with  regard  to  facts  con- 
cerning the  hght-house  stations  along  the  Atlantic  coast, 
and  that  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  may  be  in  error 
when  he  makes  sweeping  statements  with  regard  to  a  gov- 
ernment irrigation  project  in  southern  Texas.  In  each  of 
these  instances  it  is  probable  that  the  eminent  gentlemen 
are  stating  evidence  which  they  themselves  have  had  no 
opportunity  of  acquiring.  If  it  is  true  that  personally 
they  do  not  know  anything  about  the  facts  which  they 
are  citing,  it  is  at  once  obvious  that  until  their  source  of 
information  is  disclosed  the  evidence  must  stand  as  the 
statement  of  a  man  who,  however  capable  he  may  be  in 
other  respects,  has  had  no  opportunity  of  personally 
knowing  the  facts  concerning  which  he  speaks.  It  is 
well  to  investigate  every  statement  of  fact  on  which  an 
argument  depends,  and  find  out  what  is  the  final  au- 
thority on  which  it  rests,  and  when  that  authority  is 


EVIDENCE  91 

found,  to  ask  ourselves  whether  he  really  had  an  oppor- 
tunity of  knowing  the  fact  which  he  asserts.  While  we 
err  frequently  in  this  respect,  we  at  once  recognize  the 
value  of  the  converse  of  this  proposition.  If  a  man  has  a 
special  reason  for  knowing  that  a  thing  is  true,  we  at  once 
seize  upon  it  as  proof  of  the  validity  of  the  fact.  Prior 
to  the  Spanish-American  War  in  1898  much  was  said  and 
written  with  regard  to  the  condition  of  Cuba,  but  it  was 
generally  conceded  that  the  utterances  that  had  the  most 
effect  upon  the  minds  of  the  people  were  those  of  Senator 
Thurston  made  directly  after  an  extended  visit  to  Cuba 
for  the  purpose  of  observing  conditions  there.  At  the 
time  this  is  written  the  American  pubUc  is  deluged  with 
news  with  regard  to  the  European  War.  Much  of  it  is 
contradictory,  but  occasionally  we  find  an  article  or  a 
statement  from  some  one  who  has  been  on  the  spot,  and 
such  evidence  deservedly  has  a  great  effect  on  our  minds. 
The  student  should,  therefore,  in  the  second  place  scan  his 
evidence  in  order  to  see  if  it  comes  from  a  source  which 
can  be  supposed  to  know  at  first  hand  the  facts  which  are 
set  forth. 

The  source  of  evidence  must  not  only  have  the  oppor- 
tunity of  knowing,  but  it  must  satisfy  the  third  test  and 
have  the  capability  of  understanding.     Not  „      , 
every  man  who  is  in  a  position  to  know   source  capa- 

also    has    the    capability.     The    capitalist  ^j^^^l  °^ J^^~ ^ 

derstandmg? 
and   his   paid    expert   engmeer  may   both 

go  through  a  mine  which  the  former  intends  to  pur- 
chase. Both  may  spend  the  same  time  and  see  the  same 
things.  Both  have  the  same  opportunity  of  knowing,  and 
yet  the  capitalist  may  well  rely  more  upon  his  engineer 
than  upon  himself.    Many  books  are  pubUshed  every  year 


92  SUBSTANCE 

by  foreigners  who  travel  through  this  country.  All  pos- 
sibly have  the  same  opportunity  of  seeing  and  forming  a 
judgment  of  the  United  States  and  its  people,  yet  all  are 
not  equally  valuable.  Occasionally,  however,  a  man  Uke 
Mr.  Bryce  writes  a  book  like  The  American  Common- 
wealth which  from  its  publication  became  an  authority 
upon  the  American  people  and  American  institutions.  The 
merit  of  this  book  is  not  only  that  Mr.  Bryce  had  oppor- 
tunity of  knowing,  because  other  men  had  had  that,  but 
also  that  we  cannot  read  far  in  its  pages  Avithout  coming  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  author  is  a  critic  who  not  only  has 
had  opportunity,  but  who  has  studied  us  and  understands 
us,  and  his  criticisms  whether  favorable  or  unfavorable 
at  once  become  of  value.  It  would  seem  therefore  that  evi- 
dence from  a  source  which  not  only  is  truthful  and  had  an 
opportunity  of  observing,  but  has  added  to  those  qualifica- 
tions the  capability  of  understanding  what  he  observed, 
would  be  evidence  deserving  consideration. 

There  is,  however,  one  other  test  that  must  be  apphed 
to  the  source  of  testimony.    No  matter  how  prepossessing 
in  appearance  and  manner  a  witness  may 
biased?  ^^'  °^®  ^^  ^^^  strongest  methods  of  attack- 

ing his  testimony  is  to  show  that  he  has 
some  interest  upon  one  side  or  the  other.  A  man  may  be 
honest  and  accurate,  and  he  may  desire  to  tell  the  truth, 
and  yet  our  experience  with  humanity  is  such  that  if  we 
find  that  he  is  closely  related  to  one  of  the  parties  to  a 
controversy,  or  that  he  is  financially  interested  in  the 
result,  we  immediately  depreciate  the  value  of  his  testi- 
mony. The  common  law  carried  this  to  such  an  extent 
that  when  a  person  was  accused  of  crime,  it  would  not 
allow  him  to  be  a  witness  in  his  own  behalf.    It  was  argued 


EVIDENCE  93 

and  was  the  law  for  centuries  that  the  testimony  of  a  man 
accused  of  crime,  whether  he  was  innocent  or  guilty,  could 
not  be  depended  upon.  We  all  recognize  that  a  man's 
opinion  of  himself,  and  his  judgment  upon  the  acts  of 
members  of  his  family,  are  singularly  unreliable.  The 
consideration  of  such  examples  convinces  us  not  that 
humanity  is  naturally  dishonest,  but  that  human  under- 
standing and  judgment  are  powerfully  affected  by  human 
interests.  It  is  always  fair,  therefore,  to  subject  our  op- 
ponents' evidence  to  this  test,  and  it  is  wise  to  subject  our 
own  evidence  to  the  same  test  before  we  offer  it;  and  in  so 
far  as  we  find  that  the  source  of  the  testimony  is  in- 
terested in  the  effect  of  the  testimony,  just  so  far  the  effi- 
ciency of  the  evidence  is  impaired.  This  error  is  present 
everywhere.  Even  statistics,  which  seem  to  be  the  bed- 
rock upon  which  an  argument  can  be  founded,  are  not 
free  from  the  criticism.  It  is  true,  perhaps,  that  "figures 
won't  lie,"  but  we  are  inclined  to  think  that  the  Yankee 
who  corrected  the  statement  by  saying  that  while  "figgers 
won't  lie,  still  fiars  will  figger,"  hit  very  near  to  the  truth. 
Certain  statistics  are  undoubtedly  reliable,  but  the  mo- 
ment that  the  authority  that  has  compiled  the  figures 
has  an  interest  in  what  they  are  to  prove,  they  are  open  to 
doubt.  It  is  not  difficult  to  see  that  if  a  board  is  main- 
tained, the  existence  of  which,  perhaps,  depends  upon  the 
efficiency  of  the  work,  where  the  salaries  and  very  liveli- 
hood of  every  employee  are  dependent  upon  the  results 
obtained,  such  a  board  is  not  likely  to  compile  statistics 
which  will  prove  its  own  inefficiency  and  deprive  its 
members  of  their  positions.  Every  man  is  affected  by 
the  most  powerful  of  influences,  his  own  financial  well- 
being,  and  the  result  frequently  is  that  statistics  which 


94  SUBSTANCE 

should  be  above  attack  are  biased  in  the  extreme. 
Local  boards,  state  commissions,  and  even  national 
bureaus  and  departments  are  not  free  from  this  fault, 
and  it  is  always  safe  to  examine  any  figures  offered 
with  a  view  to  find  out  whether  the  persons  who  made  the 
compilations  had  any  interest  in  the  observations  which 
they  were  making.  It  is  even  recorded  that  a  local  em- 
ployee of  the  weather  bureau  omitted  to  record  precipita- 
tion caused  by  a  shower  upon  the  last  day  of  the  month 
because  he  did  not  wish  to  spoil  the  record  which  showed 
that  month  to  be  the  driest  known  in  the  history  of  the 
department. 

While  interest  in  the  result  affects  the  value  of  testi- 
mony, we  should  note  and  remember  that  the  converse  is 

„.   ^      .  equally  true;  lack  of  interest  increases  the 

Kinds  of  un-     ^       -^  '  n^,  .    i      i 

biased  or         weight  of  the  testimony.    This  leads  us  to 

disinterested  ^he   consideration  of  three  kinds  of  good 
evidence,  all  of  which  are  good  because  we 
recognize  that  the  possibility  of  human  bias  affecting  the 
accuracy  of  the  testimony  is  in  these  to  a  great  extent  re- 
moved.    These  three  kinds  of  good  evidence  are  furnished 
by,  first,  what  we  may  call  undesigned  testimony,  second, 
negative  testimony,  and  third,  admissions  against  interest} 
Undesigned  testimony  is  that  which  is  given  when  the 
effect  of  it  is  not  under  consideration.    If  a  man  does  not 
know  that  anything  depends  upon  his  testi- 
testimonT       ^"^'^^Yy  ^^V  personal  interest  that  he  may 
have  is  not  likely  to  affect  him.    If  a  man 
on  the  witness  stand  should  testify  that  his  brother  who 
is  accused  of  crime  was  with  him  at  a  certain  time  upon 

^  See  Baker  and  Huntington,  Principles  of  Argumentation,  pp.  130- 
134. 


EVIDENCE  95 

the  day  in  question,  we  might  well  view  his  testimony  with 
suspicion;  but  if  anyone  in  talking  with  us  casually  should 
tell  of  a  certain  incident  which  occurred  when  he  and  his 
brother  were  playing  golf  together,  we  should  not  doubt 
that  they  were  together  at  the  time  mentioned.  In  the 
one  case  we  recognize  a  powerful  interest  which  goes  far 
to  invalidate  the  story.  In  the  other  the  fact  of  the  broth- 
er's'presence  seems  merely  incidental,  and  as  we  do  not 
detect  any  design  or  artifice  in  it,  we  accept  it  as  true. 
Certain  statistics  furnish  an  excellent  example  of  the 
value  of  undesigned  testimony.  It  is  now  the  custom  or 
the  law  in  nearly  all  civilized  communities  that  a  record  of 
births,  marriages  and  deaths  be  kept.  The  officials  who 
have  charge  of  these  matters  have  no  interest  whatever. 
They  get  their  reports  from  physicians,  or  clergymen,  or 
other  parties,  and  are  really  employed  not  to  exercise  any 
judgment  or  to  bring  about  any  results,  but  merely  to 
count  and  classify  the  returns  that  they  receive.  The 
individual  sources  of  their  information  are  so  varied  that 
it  is  not  possible  to  imagine  any  set  plan  or  purpose  of 
deceit.  These  statistics,  therefore,  when  published  are 
absolutely  free  from  design;  they  are  used  for  countless 
purposes  of  which  the  compilers  have  no  knowledge. 
They  are  generally  recognized  as  being  for  that  reason 
dependable. 

Negative  testimony,  or  as  it  is  sometimes  termed,  the 
testimony  of  silence,  is  another  kind,  good  because  it  is 
free  from  bias.     Under  some  circumstances 
we  assume  that  a  man  will  almost  of  neces-    tesfimonv 
sity  speak  regarding  a  thing  which  he  knows; 
and  if  he  does  not  speak,  we  assume  that  he  could  not 
have  known  of  the  fact.     If  in  an  account  by  an  early 


96  SUBSTANCE 

explorer  of  the  St.  Lawrence  River  from  its  mouth  through 
the  Great  Lakes,  the  author  made  no  mention  whatsoever 
of  Niagara  Falls,  we  would  at  once  conclude  that  he 
did  not  follow  the  stream  through  its  entire  length. 
If  we  did  not  say  that  he  was  an  imposter,  we  would 
at  least  say  that  he  departed  from  the  river  consider- 
ably in  passing  from  Lake  Ontario  to  Lake  Erie.  The 
value  of  negative  testimony  is  everywhere  recognized. 
Silence  is  said  to  give  consent,  and  the  common  law 
declares  that  if  a  man  does  not  speak  when  the  cir- 
cumstances would  seem  to  call  upon  him  to  say  some- 
thing, it  may  be  assumed  that  he  has  no  reason  for 
speaking.  Many  ingenious  arguments,  for  instance,  have 
been  advanced  to  show  that  Lord  Bacon  was  the  au- 
thor of  some  of  the  plays  usually  attributed  to  Shake- 
speare; yet  it  is  fair  to  say  that  they  have  not  been  gener- 
ally believed,  largely  because  there  was  no  record  either  at 
the  time  or  for  centuries  after  that  anyone  had  attacked 
the  authorship  that  was  usually  attributed  to  these  plays. 
When,  therefore,  we  find  that  the  interests  of  any  person 
or  persons  call  upon  them  to  make  an  assertion  that 
a  thing  is  true,  and  nothing  is  said,  we  conclude  that  the 
thing  is  not  true.  In  this  testimony  of  silence  the  cir- 
cumstances show  us  that  there  is  no  bias  present. 

Admissions  against  interest  are  the  third  kind  of  testi- 
mony, good  because  it  is  unbiased.  In  the  case  of  unde- 
Admissions  signed  testimony  we  saw  that  there  is  an 
against  absence  of  interest  because  the  source  has 

interest  ^^  knowledge  of  what  the  result  is  to  be. 

In  the  second  case,  negative  testimony,  we  found  an  in- 
terest which  would  affect  it,  and  from  the  fact  that  nothing 
is  said  conclude  that  there  is  nothing  to  say.    We  now  go 


EVIDENCE  97 

a  step  further,  and  find  a  condition  where  we  would  expect 
the  interests  of  the  person  giving  the  testimony  to  in- 
fluence him  to  say  one  thing,  and  yet  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  he  states  the  opposite.  The  value  of  this  testi- 
mony is  at  once  apparent.  Everyone  expects  a  crimi- 
nal to  plead  not  guilty.  If  he  pleads  guilty,  we  do 
not  take  the  trouble  to  try  him  because  we  assume  con- 
clusively that  he  would  not  make  an  admission  so  preju- 
dicial to  his  interests  if  it  were  not  true.  In  a  murder 
trial  not  long  ago  in  Massachusetts  when  the  mother  of  the 
accused  under  respectful  but  persistent  cross-examination 
finally  admitted  a  point  of  vital  importance  to  the 
prosecution,  the  tension  in  the  court  room  was  almost 
unbearable.  Everyone  realized  the  vital  significance  of 
this  admission  coming  from  the  one  person  who  would 
be  least  likely  to  testify  to  it  if  it  were  not  true.  Another 
example  of  this  was  the  admission  of  Senator  Aldrich 
shortly  before  his  retirement  that  the  government  of 
Washington  could,  by  installing  ordinary  business  meth- 
ods, save  over  $300,000  a  year.  The  idea  was  not  new;  in 
fact,  there  were  few  people  even  of  the  dominant  political 
party  who  would  have  taken  the  trouble  to  deny  that  the 
government  was  extravagant,  yet  the  admission,  coming 
as  it  did  from  the  senator  who  for  years  had  pre-eminently 
been  identified  with  the  poUcy  of  the  party  then  in 
power  and  who  inferentially  might  be  said  to  have 
been  responsible  for  the  extravagance,  attracted  atten- 
tion through  the  country  and  was  the  subject  of  editorial 
comment  in  practically  every  newspaper  in  the  United 
States. 

Briefly  stated  this  fourth  test  of  the  source  of  evidence 
is  as  follows:  We  ask  whether  the  witness  has  9,ny thing 


98 


SUBSTANCE 


at  stake  in  the  matter  for  we  all  recognize  that  the 
opinions,  judgments,  and  even  the  statements  of  humanity 
are  powerfully  affected  by  personal  in- 
terests. In  undesigned  testimony,  negative 
testimony,  or  admissions  against  interest 
we  see  that  these  interests  are  removed 
from  consideration  and  the  evidence  be- 
comes doubly  valuable. 


Summary  of 
the  fourth 
test  of  the 
source  of 
evidence 


CHAPTER  VII 
REASONING 

The  questions  small  children  ask  about  every  conceiv- 
able subject  are  often  amusing  and  sometimes  embarrass- 
ing. What  makes  the  fire  hot?  Why  does  the  sun  shine? 
Why  does  the  moon  rise?  What  is  "time"?  These  are 
but  a  few  which  make  life  a  burden  for  some  unimagina- 
tive, matter-of-fact  people. 

This  period  in  a  child's  life  is  that  in  which  occurs  the 
budding  of  the  reasoning  process.  It  is  a  mark  of  su- 
periority of  the  human  animal  that  at  an    importance 

early  age  the  human  young  is  ever  seeking    of  the  study 
,    .  .       1      ,     .        ,       of  reasoning 

the  why,   and   is   unconsciously  trying   to 

develop  its  reasoning  power.  The  child's  inferences  are 
often  faulty  for  they  are  in  general  made  from  a  too  limited 
experience.  A  case  has  been  given  ^  in  which  a  baby  went 
into  convulsions  every  time  he  saw  a  boy.  It  was  found 
later  that  a  neighbor's  small  son  had  amused  himself  one 
afternoon  by  placing  the  baby  in  a  bath-tub  full  of  water 
to  see  if  he  would  float.  Although  the  infant's  reasoning 
that  all  boys  would  behave  aUke  was  faulty,  neverthe- 
less it  was  reasoning.  The  older  we  grow  the  broader  our 
experience  becomes,  and  the  more  correct  our  inferences 
are.  "The  terrible  sanity  of  the  average  man"  is  in  the 
long  run  a  very  efficient  test  of  the  soundness  of  our 
reasoning.     Nevertheless   the   fallibility   of   the   human 

1  Lombroso. 
99 


100  SUBSTANCE 

mind  has  been  an  axiom  since  Puck  said,  "What  fools 
these  mortals  be!"  To  be  really  educated,  therefore,  we 
must  develop  and  sharpen  our  reasoning  faculties  by 
analysis,  thought,  and  practice,  in  order  to  excel  the 
average  man.  We  must  study  first,  in  this  chapter,  the 
general  principles  and  laws  of  reasoning,  and  then,  in  the 
next  chapter,  the  common  errors  or  fallacies  into  which 
we  fall  in  our  conscious  or  unconscious  application  of 
these  laws. 

Reasoning  is  the  process  by  which  conclusions  are 
inferred  from  known  facts.  Our  evidence  furnishes  facts; 
from  these  we  must  reach  the  desired  re- 
reasoninc  suits.  There  are  two  methods  by  which 
we  reach  this  conclusion:  by  deduction  and 
by  induction.  In  other  words,  there  are  two  methods  of 
reasoning,  deductive  and  inductive.  Inductive  reasoning  is 
the  process  of  inferring  general  judgments  from  particular 
instances.  Deductive  reasoning  is  the  opposite  process  by 
which  we  infer  particular  judgments  from  general  proposi- 
tions.   An  example  of  induction  is: 

Socrates,  Plato,  and  Alcibiades  were  mortal; 
Socrates,  Plato,  and  Alcibiades  represent  mankind; 
Therefore,  all  men  are  mortal. 

An  example  of  deduction  is: 

All  men  are  mortal; 
Socrates  is  a  man; 
Therefore,  Socrates  is  mortal. 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  conclusion  of  the  induction 
becomes  the  general  proposition  of  the  deduction.  For 
this,  reason  inductive   and  deductive  reasoning  are  in- 


REASONING  101 

separably  connected.  Indeed,  it  is  only  when  the  general 
proposition  of  the  deduction  is  universally  accepted  that 
deductive  reasoning  can  stand  alone. 

The  word  syllogism  means  an  argument  according  to 
regular  form;  it  is  generally  apphed  to  deductive  reason- 
ing.   The  process  by  which  we  proved  that  Deductive 
Socrates  is  mortal  is  the  classic  example  of  reasoning: 
a  deductive  syllogism.     The  first  step,  or  ^    ^^ 

general  proposition,  is  called  the  major  premise:  "all  men 
are  mortal."  The  next  step  is  called  the  minor  premise: 
"Socrates  is  a  man."  The  last  step  is  called  the  conclu- 
sion; it  is  the  inference  which  we  desired  to  make:  "Soc- 
rates is  mortal."  There  are  eight  rules  of  the  syllogism, 
old  as  Logic  itself — some  2,000  years — ,  which  govern  the 
use  of  the  process.  They  may  be  found  in  any  book  on 
logic,  but  for  the  purposes  of  this  book  lack  of  time 
forces  a  reliance  on  the  common  sense  of  the  average 
man  to  decide  if  the  reasoning  is  valid. 

The  principle  on  which  deductive  reasoning  rests  is 
fundamentally  that  "whatever  is  affirmed  of  a  class  may 
be  afl&rmed  of  all  members  of  that  class.  Xests  of  de- 
Whatever  is  denied  of  a  class  may  be  denied  ductive 
of  all  the  members  of  that  class."   A  deduct-  ^^^somng 
ive  argument  is  satisfactory,  therefore,  if  the  general  state- 
ment, or  major  premise,  is  true;  if  the  particular  case 
falls  within  the  class  about  which  the  general  statement 
is  made — if  the  minor  premise,  in  short,  is  true;  and  finally 
if  the  conclusion  follows  inevitably  from  the  two  premises. 
The    Socrates    syllogism    apparently    satisfies    all    these 
tests;  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  all  men  are  mortal;  it 
is  undoubtedly  true  that  Socrates  is  a  man;  it  inevitably 
follows  that  Socrates  is  mortal.    If  we  use  our  common 


102  SUBSTANCE 

sense  in  applying  these  three  tests  of  deduction,  we  shall 
have  no  difficulty  in  determining  the  validity  of  the 
reasoning. 

Sometimes  a  difficulty  does  arise  from  the  fact  that 
often  one  of  the  terms  of  the  syllogism  is  not  expressed 
but  implied.  The  general  principle,  or 
enthvmeme  '^^jo''  premise,  is  as  a  rule  omitted:  this 
man  is  a  Democrat,  because  he  is  a  free- 
trader. The  general  principle  is  that  all  free-traders  are 
Democrats.  This  condensed  syllogism  is  called  an  en- 
thjoneme;  part  of  it  is  carried  in  the  mind.  The  way  to 
test  an  enthymeme  is  to  supply  the  missing  part,  in  order 
to  make  it  a  complete  syllogism,  and  then  apply  the  test 
of  deductive  reasoning. 

Kinds    of  When  we  turn  from  deductive  to  inductive 

inductive  reasoning  we  find  three  types :  generalization, 
reasoning        analogy,  and  causal  relationship. 

Generalization  is  the  most  typical  form :  it  is  the  process 
by  which,  from  the  observation  of  a  sufficient  number  of  typical 
cases  of  a  class,  a  general  principle  or  law  is 
xj  ~     established  concerning  the  whole  of  the  class. 

For  instance,  all  the  magnets  which  we  have 
observed  attract  iron;  we  believe  these  magnets  are  typical; 
we  conclude  that  all  magnets  attract  iron.  Again,  certain 
falling  bodies  are  observed  to  fall  a  certain  distance  the 
first  second,  and  a  certain  increasing  ratio  in  subsequent 
seconds;  we  establish  laws  for  these  observed  instances;  we 
conclude  that  these  laws  hold  good  for  all  falling  bodies. 

We  turn  from  generalization,  where  the  whole  class 
resembles  the  observed  cases,  to  the  second  form  of  induc- 
tive argument,  analogy,  where  a  certain  case  resembles 
another  particular  case  or  cases  in  one  or  more  respects 


REASONING  103 

so  that  a  certain  proposition  true  of  the  known  case  or 
cases  is  true  of  the  unknown.  The  formations  and  ap- 
pearances of  the  ore  in  this  mine  are  similar     . 

.      Analogy 
to  those  in  Leadville;  therefore  this  mine  is 

probably  valuable.  At  first  sight  this  does  not  fall  under 
the  definition  of  deductive  or  inductive  reasoning;  it  seems 
to  proceed  neither  from  the  general  to  the  particular  nor 
from  the  particular  to  the  general,  but  from  the  particular 
to  the  particular.  It  may,  however,  be  called  inductive 
because  it  involves  a  tacit  generalization  to  the  effect  that 
all  mines  resembhng  those  at  Leadville  are  likely  to  be 
productive.  This  general  conclusion  has  been  reached 
by  the  observation  of  countless  cases,  and  thus  the  whole 
process  is  inductive.  The  particular  conclusion  that  this 
mine  is  probably  valuable  is  only  a  special  application  of 
the  tacit  general  conclusion.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that 
in  reasoning  by  analogy  we  have  a  double  process:  first 
from  the  known  particular  to  the  general  law;  then  from 
this  general  law  to  the  particular  unknown  case.  The 
first  part  of  the  process  determines  the  classification  of 
the  reasoning  as  inductive. 

Examples  of  reasoning  by  analogy  are  met  everywhere. 
The  ripples  upon  the  sands  of  the  sea-shore  are  caused  by 
the  waves;  probably  the  ripples  in  the  ancient  and  inland 
sandstones  were  caused  by  waves.  Mars  resembles  the 
earth  in  having  bodies  of  water,  clouds,  snow-covered 
polar  regions,  etc.;  it  very  possibly  resembles  it  in  being 
inhabited.  Lightning  resembles  electricity  in  its  zigzag 
course,  its  flash,  etc.;  probably  it  resembles  it  in  every- 
thing and  is  electricity.  Strictly  speaking,  analogy  means 
merely  a  resemblance,  not  an  identity,  of  relations.  In 
reasoning  by  analogy,  therefore,  we  can  affirm  only  to 


104  SUBSTANCE 

some  degree  of  probability,  and  the  degree  will  depend 
upon  the  closeness  of  similarity  and  the  other  circum- 
stances of  the  case. 

The  third  form  of  inductive  reasoning  is  that  of  causal 
relation.    All  three  methods  show  a  certain  reliance  upon 

causal  connection  as  based  upon  experience, 
tion-  its  con-  Generalization  has  merely  an  indirect  refer- 
nection  with  erence  to  the  causal  connection  of  its  facts; 
and  analoffv    ^®  have  as  an  implied  premise  a  belief  in  the 

uniformity  of  nature.  This  is  but  another 
way  of  saying  that  as  we  consider  there  are  certain 
causes  which  had  certain  results  in  observed  cases, 
we  believe  that  these  causes  will  have  the  same  re- 
sults in  all  cases  of  the  same  kind.  We  know,  for 
instance,  that  there  is  a  certain  tendency  which  causes 
observed  bodies  to  fall  a  certain  distance  the  first  sec- 
ond, and  a  certain  increasing  ratio  in  subsequent  sec- 
onds. We  conclude  that  this  same  mysterious  cause 
will  work  for  all  falling  bodies,  and  we  therefore  for- 
mulate a  general  law.  Nevertheless,  this  method  "breaks 
down  as  an  exception  is  noted;  and  it  is  weakened 
by  the  possibility  at  least  of  the  appearance  of  an  ex- 
ception." Aristotle  said  that  the  proposition  that  all 
swans  are  white  was  undoubtedly  true;  yet  in  recent 
times  black  swans  have  been  discovered  in  Australia. 
Generalization,  in  short,  places  little  reliance  upon  the 
causal  connection  of  its  facts,  and  is  therefore  the  least 
trustworthy  of  the  three  kinds  of  inductive  reasoning. 
In  analogy  there  is  likewise  an  implied  premise  that  an 
underlying  cause  working  upon  the  known  case  will  work 
uniformly  upon  the  unknown  case;  we  believe,  in  other 
words,    that    similar    phenomena    have    similar    causes. 


REASONING  105 

Benjamin  Franklin  observed  that  the  flash  of  Ughtning 
and  the  spark  of  electricity  were  very  similar;  this  sug- 
gested to  him  that  these  two  phenomena  might  have  a 
similar  and  identical  cause;  he  concluded  that  they  were 
one  and  the  same  thing.  By  actual  experiment  he  con- 
firmed his  reasoning.  Analogy,  however,  unless  confirmed 
by  experiment,  cannot  be  considered  as  a  final  method  of 
reasoning.  Many  apparent  resemblances  may  lead  us  to 
make  false  analogies.  A  child,  for  instance,  might  think 
that  gasoline  would  put  out  fire  because  it  resembles 
water  so  closely.  Analogy  is  somewhat  better  than 
generaHzation  at  that:  in  the  one,  causation  is  entirely 
subordinated;  in  the  other,  the  assumption  of  an  under- 
lying cause  which  will  work  in  a  similar  case  is  much  more 
definite.  In  the  third  method  of  reasoning,  the  causal 
relation  is  most  prominent.  Indeed  the  search  for  it 
characterizes  the  procedure  used  and  gives  it  a  name. 
Cause  is  no  longer  an  underlying  assumption;  it  is  the 
method  itself.  That  which  in  the  other  two  methods 
existed  merely  as  a  vague  impression  is  here  made  the 
direct  and  sole  object  of  research. 

Why  is  the  argument  from  causal  relation  classed  as 
inductive?     It  does  not  reason  from  particulars  to  the 
general,  but  from  particular  to  particular,     Causal 
just  as  analogy  does.    It  is,  however,  classi-    relation 
fied  as  inductive  because  causal  relations, 
Uke  analogy,  can  be  established  only  by  induction:  to  say 
that  arsenic  is  a  cause  of  death  means  that  in  all  cases 
where  arsenic  has  been  taken,  death  has  ensued  or  will 
ensue.     This   is  a  general   statement    reached   through 
the   observation    of    particular    cases.      The   particular 
conclusion  that  this  death    was  caused   by  arsenic   is 


106  SUBSTANCE 

only  a  special  application  of  the  tacit  general  con- 
clusion. 

Reasoning  from  causal  relation  is  of  three  kinds;  from 
Kinds  of  effect  to  cause,  from  cause  to  effect,  and 

causal  from  effect  to  effect.     Of  these  there  are 

reasoning  likewise  three  degrees  of  probabiHty:  where 
the  causal  connection  is  possible;  where  it  is  probable; 
and  where  it  is  certain. 

When  we  argue  from  effect  to  cause,  we  infer  from  an 
observed  effect  that  a  certain  cause,  though  unobserved, 
has  acted.     When  in  the  morning  we  see 
fo.fc^i  *°  puddles  of  water  on  the  ground  we  infer 

that  it  rained  during  the  night.  When 
Democratic  Judy  is  in  power  and  there  happens  to  be  a 
period  of  financial  stringency,  Republican  Punch  blames 
the  Democratic  Tariff.  He  says  that  we  have  hard  times, 
and  the  cause  is  that  duties  have  been  lowered  and  cheap 
foreign  goods  can  come  into  this  country;  our  mills  have 
been  shut  down,  the  people  are  all  out  of  work,  and  nobody 
makes  any  money.  Every  great  panic  in  the  history  of 
the  country,  he  continues,  was  a  direct  result  of  the  poUcies 
of  the  Democrats.  If  it  did  not  occur  in  the  Democratic 
administration  it  was  the  after  effects  of  those  policies. 
All  our  great  floods  came  in  times  of  Democratic  control. 
"The  judgments  of  the  Lord  are  true  and  righteous  al- 
together." We  must,  therefore,  remove  from  office  the 
thing  that  always  causes  these  ills — and  the  cause  of 
all  is  the  Democratic  Tariff.  The  Republican  puppet 
argues  from  observed  effects  to  what  he  believes  or  wishes 
us  to  believe  to  have  been  the  cause. 

The  second  form  of  argument  from  causal  relation  is 
from  an  observed  cause  to  what  is  believed  will  be  the 


REASONING  107 

effect.    This  proceeds  from  a  given  force  to  that  state 

of  affairs  which  will  succeed  it.    To  illustrate,  we  put 

on  our  raincoats  on  a  cloudy  day,  because 

,  1  .  Cause  to 

we  reason  from  an  observed  force  or  cause,     effect 

the  threatening  weather,  to  the  probable  re- 
sult, rain.  When  Washington  argued  in  his  "Farewell  Ad- 
dress" against  foreign  entanglements,  he  reasoned  from 
cause  to  effect,  that  such  relations  would  cause  foreign  con- 
flicts. Again,  to  go  back  to  our  Punch  and  Judy  poUtical 
campaign,  let  us,  to  be  fair,  give  Democratic  Judy  a  show. 
The  Democrats,  it  will  be  remembered,  are  in  power;  it 
is  election  time;  Judy  must  show  why  Republican  Punch 
should  not  be  elected.  Waiving  the  question  of  woman 
suffrage  as  a  matter  on  which  she  is  prejudiced,  Judy 
reasons  from  a  supposed  cause,  the  policies  of  the  hated 
Republicans  to  what  she  considers  would  be  the  results 
if  they  should  be  elected.  After  a  great  declamation 
upon  the  sovereignty  of  the  people,  she  dramatically 
"  prestidigitates "  from  her  capacious  underskirt  pocket  a 
baby's  shoe,  cap,  dress  and  bottle  of  milk.  Then  it  is  easy 
to  show  that  "under  the  Republican  Tariff  this  shoe  would 
cost  $1.69,  while  it  costs  only  $1.43  under  the  splendid, 
scientific  tariff  of  the  party  of  the  people;  this  cap  would 
cost  53  cents,  not  47;  this  dress  would  cost  $2.00,  not  $1.50; 
finally,  this  bottle  of  milk,  this  unassuming  little  bottle, 
containing  the  welfare  or  the  downfall  of  this,  the  world's 
greatest  nation,  according  to  its  purity  and  plenty,  this 
little  bottle,  I  say,  would  cost  7  cents,  whereas  under  the 
great  Democratic  Tariff  it  costs  but  the  small  sum  of  six 
pennies."  She  sees  certain  things  under  Republican  power: 
a  high  tariff.  The  effect  would  be  beyond  a  doubt  the 
high  cost  of  living.    Thus  it  is  that  she  reverses  the 


108  SUBSTANCE 

process  of  Republican  Punch  and  argues  from  cause  to 
effect. 

Besides  the  argument  from  cause  to  effect  and  from 
effect  to  cause  there  is  according  to  the  books  still  a  third 
form  of  arguing  from  causal  relation — from 
effect  effect  to  effect.     The  simple  weather  illus- 

tration very  popular  with  the  writers  goes 
something  like  this:  "If  a  boy  says  that  there  is  skating 
to-day  because  the  thermometer  registers  below  the 
freezing  point,  he  really  reasons  from  the  low  thermometer 
to  its  cause,  the  low  temperature,  and  from  that  back  to 
another  effect  of  the  same  cause,  namely,  the  frozen  river.  "^ 
When  we  argue,  for  instance,  that  the  party  in  power  will 
be  defeated  at  the  next  presidential  election  because  it 
was  defeated  in  the  last  congressional  election,  we  have 
in  our  minds  a  certain  analogy  between  the  two  elections; 
we  see  certain  definite  causes  of  the  first  defeat,  the 
Mexican  situation,  perhaps,  and  we  reason  that  another 
defeat  will  result  in  the  next  election  because  of  the  same 
cause.    In  other  words,  we  reason  from  effect  to  effect. 

When  we  test  the  existence  of  the  supposed  causal  rela- 
tion we  must  recognize  that  while  "nothing  can  exist 
The  comolex  ^^^^^^^  ^  cause,"  there  is  seldom  one  and 
nature  of  the  only  one  cause  followed  by  one  and  only 
causal  Qj^g  effect.     Every  cause  is  composed  of  a 

chain  of  actions,  conditions,  and  motives;  it 
may  sometimes  even  remind  us  of  the  old  nursery  rhyme: 

"The  cat  began  to  kill  the  rat; 
The  rat  began  to  gnaw  the  rope; 
The  rope  began  to  hang  the  butcher; 
The  butcher  began  to  kill  the  ox." 

^  Foster,  Argumentation  and  Debating,  page  135. 


REASONING  109 

Effects  likewise  are  often  composed  of  a  number  of  ele- 
ments, or  are  accompanied  by  a  number  of  other  effects. 

In  science,  with  which  formal  logic  seems  to  concern  it- 
self more  than  it  does  with  argument,  the  search  is  for 
the  efficient  element  of  the  cause,  which  is  always  fol- 
lowed by  a  given  effect. 

"Mr.  Darwin,  in  his  experiments  upon  cross  and  self 
fertilization  in  the  vegetable  kingdom,  placed  a  net  about 
one  hundred  flower  heads,  thus  protecting  them  from  the 
bees  and  from  any  chance  of  fertilization  by  means  of  the 
pollen  conveyed  to  them  by  the  bees.  He  at  the  same  time 
placed  one  hundred  other  flower  heads  of  the  same  variety 
of  plant  where  they  could  be  exposed  to  the  bees,  and, 
as  he  observed,  were  repeatedly  visited  by  them.  Here 
we  have  two  sets  of  instances,  in  one  the  flowers  accessible 
to  the  bees,  and  in  the  other,  not  accessible.  He  ob- 
tained the  following  result :  The  protected  flowers  failed  to 
yield  a  single  seed.  The  others  produced  68  grains  weight 
of  seed,  which  he  estimated  as  numbering  2,720.  Cross- 
fertilization  as  the  cause  in  this  case  is  thus  proved."^ 

In  law  the  test  of  a  man's  responsibility  for  causing  a 
given  effect  is  whether  this  effect  was  intended  or  could 
have  been  foreseen  from  his  action,  even  if  his  action  is  not 
the  immediate  or  proximate  cause.  A  railroad  company, 
for  instance,  is  responsible  for  its  act  in  delaying  goods  if 
on  account  of  the  delay  they  should  freeze,  because  it  is 
foreseeable  in  winter  that  they  might  freeze.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  not  liable  for  its  act  in  delaying  goods  if  on 
account  of  the  delay  they  should  be  spoiled  by  a  flood 
which  could  not  be  foreseen.  Yet  in  each  case  the  railroad 
caused  the  damage  by  its  delay. 

^  Hibben,  Logic,  Deductive  and  Inductive,  page  253. 


110  SUBSTANCE 

In  argument,  unlike  science  but  like  law,  we  are  con- 
cerned with  other  than  immediate  or  final  causes.  We 
Tests  of  the  ^^^^  given  a  cause  or  an  effect;  we  wish  to 
causal  rela-  know  whether  we  can  infer  from  the  cause 
**®^  the  existence  of  a  given  effect,  or  from  the  ef- 

fect the  existence  of  a  given  cause.  It  makes  no  difference 
whether  the  cause  and  effect  are  connected  proximately 
or  remotely.  Our  tests,  moreover,  are  not  hke  those  of 
logic — experimental  certainty;  they  are  those  of  probabil- 
ity. If  a  certain  effect  will  possibly  follow  a  given  cause, 
that  is  sometimes  an  argument  of  weight;  if  it  will  probably 
follow,  that  is  often  an  argument  of  some  weight;  if  it  will 
certainly  follow,  that  of  course  is  the  most  weighty  argu- 
ment of  all.  If  we  are  arguing  that  the  United  States  will 
intervene  in  Mexico,  we  might  give  as  one  reason  the  chaos 
and  anarchy  there;  this  state  of  affairs  will  possibly  result 
in  intervention.  If  it  were  true  that  all  Americans  had 
been  driven  out  of  Mexico  and  their  property  confiscated, 
this  would  be  a  stronger  argument  because  intervention 
would  probably  result.  If,  finally,  the  Mexican  "generals " 
should  combine  and  send  an  expeditionary  raiding  force 
against  Los  Angeles,  this  would  be  the  strongest  argument 
because  intervention  would  certainly  result.  Our  problem, 
it  is  clear,  then,  is  not  to  test  the  absolute  certainty  of  the 
causal  relation,  but  to  determine  the  value  of  the  argu- 
ment by  the  degree  of  probability  that  the  causal  relation 
exists.  We  have,  therefore,  as  our  tests  merely  these  three 
questions:  Is  the  causal  connection  possible?  Is  it  prob- 
able?   Is  it  certain? 

The  question  of  whether  the  existence  of  the  causal 
relation  is  possible  depends  upon  the  potentiality  of  the 
cause  to  bring  about  the  effect.    By  this  we  do  not  mean 


REASONING  111 

that  the  cause  must  be  absolutely  adequate  in  itself.    It 

may  be  that  it  is  a  motive  that  might  or  might  not  cause 

a  certain  thing  to  happen.     The  hatred  of    _.    ^ ,    ,  . 

*  First  test:  IS 

Mexico  for  the  United  States  might  result    the   causal 

in  positive  acts  of  violence,  and  these  in    connection 

possible? 
turn  might  cause  intervention  by  the  United 

States.  It  is  an  argument  of  some  weight,  therefore,  that 
the  causal  relation  possibly  exists,  because  that  shows  a 
tendency  for  it  to  exist.  The  weight  of  this  tendency 
depends  upon  the  other  facts  that  stimulate  or  minimize 
it.  Too  often  the  police  are  inclined  to  consider  a  man 
guilty  of  a  crime  simply  because  he  has  a  motive  for  com- 
mitting it.  Without  a  motive  existence  of  crime  seems 
almost  an  impossibility,  yet  the  existence  of  the  motive 
proves  merely  the  possibility  of  the  crime.  While  we  must 
admit  that  any  argument  which  satisfies  merely  the  first 
test,  possibiUty,  has  some  weight,  yet  it  cannot  be  ac- 
cepted as  final. 

It  is  of  much  more  value,  however,  to  show  not 
only  that  the  causal  relation  possibly  exists,  but  that 
it  also  probably  exists.  The  cause  is  suf-  Second  test* 
ficient  to  produce  the  effect,  and  there  is  is  it  prob- 
a  marked  tendency  for  it  to  do  so.  It  may  ^"^^• 
be  that  the  cause  is  prevented  from  working  by  a  third 
force,  or  it  may  be  that  another  cause  could  have  brought 
about  the  effect,  but  to  satisfy  the  second  test  the  sup- 
posed causal  relation  must  reasonably  be  supposed  to 
exist.  Very  strong  motives  satisfy  this  test.  Indeed 
nearly  all  convincing  circumstantial  evidence  falls  within 
its  category;  the  existence  of  a  motive  is  nothing  but 
circumstantial  evidence.  President  Hibben  cites  ^  the 
^  Logic,  Inductive  and  Deductive,  page  347ff . 


112  SUBSTANCE 

case  of  Nicholas  v.  Commonwealth  (21  South  Eastern 
Reporter,  264),  illustrating  how  probative  such  evidence 
may  be,  although  it  cannot  establish  the  causal  relation 
beyond  the  possibility  of  error.  The  accused  had  taken 
great  pains  to  get  the  two  victims  to  go  on  a  trip  with 
him  across  a  river  to  take  a  bee  tree.  It  was  common 
knowledge  that  the  two  men  did  not  know  how  to 
swim. 

"  It  further  appears  that  the  boat  was  a  small  one,  about 
ten  feet  long  and  about  two  and  one-half  feet  wide,  and 
both  in  going  over  and  returning  the  prisoner  sat  in  the 
extreme  rear  of  the  boat  with  his  face  to  the  front,  and 
that  Wilkerson  and  Mills  sat  in  front  and  their  backs  to 
the  accused.  .  .  .  When  returning,  and  about  fifty  yards 
from  Henrico  shore,  the  boat  suddenly  filled  with  water, 
and  Mills  and  Wilkerson  were  drowned,  and  the  prisoner 
swam  to  shore.  The  next  day  the  Magistrate  of  the  dis- 
trict was  notified  of  the  occurrence,  and  an  investigation 
was  set  on  foot.  The  boat  was  gotten  out  of  the  water, 
and  it  was  found  that  immediately  under  the  seat  where 
Nicholas  sat  there  were  three  holes,  freshly  bored  with  an 
inch  and  a  half  auger.  The  evidence  of  the  owner  of  the 
boat  shows  that  on  Tuesday  evening,  the  6th  of  December, 
he  used  his  boat,  and  it  was  sound.  It  was  taken  by 
Nicholas  for  this  fatal  trip  Thursday  morning,  the  8th  of 
December.  Further  investigation  discovered  fresh  pine 
shavings  corresponding  to  size  of  the  holes  and  to  the 
wood  the  boat  was  made  of,  which  had  been  thrown  into 
the  water,  but  had  drifted  upon  the  shore  near  the  point 
where  the  boat  had  stood  fastened  to  the  Henrico  side. 
There  were  also  found  corn-cobs  which  had  been  cut  ex- 
actly to  fit  the  holes  in  the  boat,  which  had  also  drifted 


REASONING  113 

to  the  same  point.    It  was  shown  that  the  prisoner  had 
in  his  possession  an  auger  just  the  size  of  the  holes." 

This  collection  of  probabilities  is  very  convincing  and 
was  sufficient  to  secure  conviction.  But  after  all  they  were 
only  probabilities  and  no  matter  how  strong  are  not  the 
equivalent  of  what  we  call  certainty. 

The  human  mind  is  so  constituted,  however,  that  such 
a  thing  as  absolute  certainty  is  non-existent.     "To  err  is 
human,"  we  are  told,  yet  we  all  want  to    xhird  test: 
be  as  nearly  perfect  as  possible.    We  wish    is  it  cer- 
to   estabhsh   our   causal   relation   with   as     ^^ 
great  an  approach  to  certainty  as  is  possible. 

A  large  manufacturer  probably  advertises  in  many 
ways;  all  of  these  will  bring  in  some  results.  He  wishes  to 
cut  selling  expenses  without  materially  decreasing  sales. 
He  withdraws  for  one  month  his  "ads"  from  the  news- 
papers. The  next  month  he  replaces  them,  but  with- 
draws the  street  car  cards.  The  following  month  he  re- 
places these,  but  he  takes  the  advertisements  out  of  the 
magazines.  After  some  time  it  would  be  a  simple  matter 
to  see  in  which  month  the  sales  had  fallen  off  the  most, 
and  that  would  show  with  reasonable  certainty  the  most 
valuable  form  of  advertising. 

An  experiment  of  Professor  Jevons,  quoted  by  President 
Hibben,^  shows  how  much  pains  are  taken  to  secure  cer- 
tainty in  particular  cases: 

"Suppose,  for  instance,  a  chemist  places  a  certain  sus- 
pected substance  in  Marsh's  test  apparatus  and  finds 
that  it  gives  a  small  deposit  of  metallic  arsenic,  he  can- 
not be  sure  that  the  arsenic  really  proceeds  from  the 
suspected  substance;  the  impurity  of  the  zinc  or  sul- 
^  Logic,  Inductive  and  Deductive,  page  247. 


114  SUBSTANCE 

phuric  acid  may  have  been  the  cause  of  its  appearance. 
It  is  therefore  the  practice  of  chemists  to  make  what 
they  call  blind  experiments,  that  is,  to  try  whether 
arsenic  appears  in  the  absence  of  the  suspected  sub- 
stance." 

In  other  words,  the  test  is  first  made  with  all  the  appa- 
ratus, but  without  the  presence  of  the  substance.  Then  the 
test  is  made  with  it  present,  and  the  arsenic,  if  found,  must 
come  as  a  matter  of  certainty  from  the  suspected  source. 
This  is  one  way  of  determining  causal  relation  as  a  matter 
of  certainty.  The  logics  give  several  other  methods;  they 
all  are  based  on  the  principle  that  to  determine  the  exist- 
ence of  the  causal  relation  with  certainty  it  must  be  shown 
that  the  supposed  cause  was  sufficient  and  no  other  causes 
could  have  acted. 

To  sum  up  this  whole  chapter,  there  are  two  kinds  of 

reasoning,  inductive  and  deductive.     In  a  deduction  we 

proceed  from  general  statements  to  par- 
Summary  .         ,  ,TT  ,     ,  •  •.  T  1-^ 

ticular  cases.  We  determme  its  validity 
by  testing  whether  the  two  premises  are  true  and  whether 
the  conclusion  follows  inevitably  from  them.  In  an  induc- 
tion we  proceed  from  particular  cases  to  a  general  state- 
ment. Of  it  there  are  three  forms,  generalization,  analogy, 
and  causal  relation.  We  test  the  last  by  determining 
whether  the  causal  relation  is  possible,  probable,  or  certain. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
FALLACIES 

Sometimes  an  older  uncle  will  learnedly  remark:  "My 
boy,  you  have  committed  a  grave  error  of  reasoning  there; 
that  is  a  case  of  the  undistributed  middle.  What?  You 
do  not  know  what  that  means?  Well!  Well!  What  are 
our  colleges  coming  to?  I  studied  Logic  two  years  when 
I  was  in  college." 

This  superior  knowledge  is  irritating,  to  say  the  least. 
It  is  no  answer  to  say  that  we  beUeve  the  technical  rules 
of  logic  to  be  of  little  value  in  after-life.    Need  of 
that  education  of  to-day  is  eminently  prac-    knowledge 
tical.    A  grave  shake  of  the  head  shows  our    °    °^^^ 
disgrace.    It  behooves  us,  therefore,  to  be  able  to  under- 
stand, if  not  to  use,  some  of  the  terms  of  the  logicians,  even 
if,  in  the  superiority  of  youth,  we  do  think  their  exercises 
are  a  waste  of  time. 

The  books  on  logic  call  errors  of  reasoning  "fallacies." 
They  classify  these  according  to  whether  they  concern 
inductive  or  deductive  reasoning.  They  ciassifica- 
also  divide  fallacies  of  deduction  into  the  tion  of  j 
heads  of  formal  or  logical,  and  material. 
Formal  fallacies  consist  in  errors  in  reasoning  due  to  viola- 
tions of  the  rules  of  the  syllogism.  Material  fallacies  are 
errors  in  reasoning  which  lie  in  the  matter  itself,  and  it 
requires  some  knowledge  of  the  subject-matter  to  detect 

them.    The  above  classifications  have  been  used  by  logi- 
ns 


116  SUBSTANCE 

cians  since  the  time  of  Aristotle.  We,  however,  are  not 
studying  logic  as  an  end  in  itself  but  merely  for  the  sharp- 
ening of  our  faculties  in  arguing.  For  that  reason  we 
shall  consider  fallacies  not  in  classes  according  to  whether 
they  occur  in  inductive  or  in  deductive  reasoning,  but  ac- 
cording to  the  places  in  the  reasoning  in  which  they  occur — 
the  premise,  the  inference,  and  the  conclusion. 

Fallacies  which  occur  in  the  premise  are  of  two  kinds. 
In  one  of  these  an  incorrect  observation  is  made  the  basis 
Fallacies  ^^  argument — a  fallacy  of  observation.     In 

occurring  in  the  other,  observation  is  discarded  and  an 
the  premise  unjustified  assumption  is  introduced  in  its 
stead — a  fallacy  of  begging  the  question.  In  fallacies  of 
observation  our  premises  are  incorrect  because  we  have 
observed  wrongly.  In  fallacies  of  the  begging  the  question 
our  premises  may  be  correct  but  as  we  were  not  justified 
in  assuming  them  our  whole  reasoning  process  lacks  con- 
viction. 

In  the  first  kind  of  fallacy  that  occurs  in  the  premise 
we  have  some  authority  for  our  facts,  our  own  observa- 
tion, but  it  is  incorrect.  By  observation 
o^^ei^ation  ^^  ^^^^  ^^^  appeal  to  any  of  the  senses, 
by  seeing,  by  hearing,  by  feehng,  by  tasting 
or  by  smelling.  Premises  based  on  sight  are  the  most 
common.  It  is  a  fallacy  of  observation  if  we  argue  that 
the  supernatural  exists  because  last  night  we  saw  a  ghost 
moving  in  the  room.  The  error  lies  in  our  faulty  eyesight; 
we  mistook  a  garment  hanging  on  a  hook  and  gently 
swaying  in  the  wind  for  a  moving  ghost.  It  was  a  fallacy 
of  observation  also  for  people  in  the  dark  ages  to  deny  the 
theory  that  the  earth  turned  upon  its  axis.  They  con- 
tended that  the  sun  revolved  around  the  earth,  for  they 


FALLACIES  117 

said  anyone  could  see  the  sun  rise  and  set;  moreover  the 
world  was  not  round,  because  it  was  plain  that  the  sea 
was  flat.  Or  it  may  be  that  our  error  in  observation  is 
due  to  the  treachery  of  one  of  our  other  senses.  One  should 
take  care  of  complaining  of  the  rough  gentlemen  in  the 
restaurant  who  seem  to  use  swear  words  in  every  sentence 
they  speak.  It  may  be  that  they  are  talking  of  the  Gatun 
Dam,  These  are  examples  of  fallacies  of  observation — • 
of  mal-observation,  if  you  prefer.  The  keynote  of  it  all 
is  that  things  are  not  always  what  they  seem.  When  you 
argue  from  your  own  experiences,  be  careful  that  you  saw, 
heard,  felt,  smelt,  and  tasted  correctly;  otherwise  you 
will  argue  from  an  incorrect  premise;  you  will  commit  a 
fallacy  of  observation. 

In  other  cases,  without  a  vision  of  your  own,  of  your 
friends,  or  of  anyone  else,  you  assume  that  ghosts  exist; 
you  infer  from  this  that,  since  ghosts  are  Fallacy  of 
supernatural,  the  supernatural  exists.  It  begging  the 
may  be  that  you  were  brought  up  by  a  black 
mammy  of  the  South  and  this  accounts  for  your  easy 
assumption  of  the  existence  of  ghosts.  Be  that  as  it  may, 
such  an  assumption  is  not  justified.  The  error  lies  in  a 
failure  to  observe.  This  is  generally  due  to  prejudices, 
which  means  preconceived  opinions.  Some  one  has  said 
that  man  is  a  reasoning  animal,  but  that  he  never  reasons 
except  to  defend  his  prejudices.  At  any  rate,  this  error 
due  to  the  failure  to  observe  is  the  second  fallacy  which  we 
find  in  the  premise — an  unjustified  assumption  of  the  facts. 
This  plain  assumption  as  a  premise  of  material  facts  which 
need  support  is  called  begging  the  question,  or  in  logic,  petitio 
principii.  It  is  ordinarily  defined  as  assuming  the  conclu- 
sion without  any  attempt  whatever  to  prove  it.   Assertive- 


118  SUBSTANCE 

ness  in  argument  is  therefore  a  tendency  to  beg  the  ques- 
tion. Very  often  we  argue  from  an  assumption  which  does 
Definition  of  ^^^  seem  unjustified;  it  is  perhaps  accepted 
begging  the  by  many  people  or  it  seems  probable.  We 
ques  ion  ^^^    soothed    into    thinking    that    no   wit- 

ness, no  authority,  is  needed  to  support  our  premise.  We 
are  so  sure  that  our  conclusion  is  right  that  we  do  not 
question  the  premise  from  which  we  reach  it.  This  error 
most  often  occurs  in  deductive  reasoning.  We  argue  from 
a  generalization  without  first  going  through  the  induct- 
ive process  to  establish  the  general  principle.  In  ancient 
times,  particularly,  men  guessed  at  their  premises;  because 
these  were  false,  they  often  reached  false  conclusions.  Aris- 
totle stated  that  large  bodies  would  fall  more  rapidly  than 
small  ones,  because  that  seemed  reasonable.  From  this 
premise  we  might  reason,  as  the  newspaper  writer  did, 
somewhat  as  follows:  a  mother  jumped  from  the  roof  of  a 
high  building  and  pushed  her  baby  off  at  the  same  time; 
she  changed  her  mind  on  the  way  down,  and  fortunately 
landed  unhurt  in  the  well  padded  seat  of  an  automobile; 
she  then,  we  are  told,  leaned  over  and  caught  in  her  arms 
the  baby  who,  being  lighter,  naturally  fell  at  a  slower  rate 
of  speed.  Unfortunately  for  the  story,  when  stones  of 
unequal  size  were  dropped  from  the  Tower  of  Pisa,  it 
was  found  that  they  fell  at  the  same  rate  of  speed. 
The  newspaper  writer  fell  into  the  fallacy  of  begging 
the  question.  He  reasoned  from  a  premise  which  he 
was  not  justified  in  assuming.  In  writing  our  argu- 
ments we  are  prone  to  commit  this  error  in  object- 
ing to  a  measure  on  the  ground  of  constitutionality. 
The  constitutional  argument  is  a  dangerous  one  for 
the  very  reason  that  the  difficulty  in  proving  the  con- 


FALLACIES  119 

tention  often  leads  us  to  assume  its  unconstitutionality, 
directly  or  indirectly.  One  boy  argued  against  the  Mini- 
mum Wage  because  it  was  unconstitutional.  Any  confis- 
catory measure,  he  said,  is  unconstitutional.  He  assumed 
that  the  measure  was  confiscatory;  he  thereby  begged 
the  whole  question.  His  assumption  was  not  justified; 
his  task,  of  course,  was  to  prove  it  confiscatory. 

If  the  premise  assumed  without  support  amounts  to 
the  same  thing  as  the  conclusion  to  be  reached,  it  is  of 
course  begging  the  question,  but  it  is  given  a 
name  of  its  own :  reasoning  in  a  circle.    Prop-    jn^a^circ^e 
erly  speaking,  it  is  a  form  of  begging  the 
question,  but  the  other  term  is  in  such  common  use  and 
the  error  is  one  which  occurs  so  frequently  that  it  has  this 
special  name.    It  has  been  defined  as  "  an  attempt  to  prove 
a  conclusion  to  follow  from  a  premise,  when  in  truth  the 
premise  itself  depends  upon  the  truth  of  the  conclusion 
as  its  ground."    Most  of  the  so-called  "Irish  bulls"  are 
typical  examples.    Pat,  it  may  be  remembered,  did  not 
like  lettuce,  "and  begorra  I'm  glad  that  I  don't  like  it, 
for  if  I  did,  I'd  ate  it,  and  I  hate  the  dirty  stuff." 

To  sum  up,  there  are  two  kinds  of  fallacies  which  occur 
in  the  premise.  The  first  kind  is  due  to  erroneous  ob- 
serving; it  is  the  fallacy  of  observation,  or     „ 

Summary 
more  accurately,  mat-observation.    The  sec- 
ond kind  is  begging  the  question;  the  fault  is  due  to  an  un- 
justified assumption  of  facts  in  the  premise.     A  special 
form  of  it  is  reasoning  in  a  circle;  the  truth  of  the  premise 
itself  depends  upon  the  truth  of  the  conclusion. 

The  next  group  of  fallacies  are  those  which  occur  in  the 
reasoning  process.  In  deduction  the  fallacy  consists  in 
the  failure  of  the  conclusion  to  follow  inevitably  from 


120  SUBSTANCE 

the  major  and  minor  premises  of  the  syllogism.  It  is 
called  a  non  sequitur.  The  term,  it  does  not  follow,  seems 
Fallacies  in  ^^  ^PP^y  ^^  ^^1  fallacies  of  the  reasoning 
the   reason-    process,  both  of  induction  and  of  deduction. 

f?g  P^'f.^^ss;  Bu^  as  those  which  have  to  do  with  in- 
deduction 

duction  are  given  special  names,  we  are  able 

to  limit  the  use  of  the  general  term,  non  sequitur,  to  de- 
duction. 

The  logicians  divide  non  sequitur  into  various  formal 
fallacies  according  to  the  rule  of  the  syllogism  violated. 

TVT  .^     For  our  purposes,  however,  the  error  is  ap- 

Non  sequitur  r-     r-        >  >  f 

parent  enough  without  any  detailed  analysis. 
A  few  examples  of  non  sequitur  are  as  follows : 

All  naturalized  foreigners  may  vote. 

No  native-born  citizens  are  naturalized  foreigners. 

Therefore,  no  native-born  citizens  may  vote. 

None  but  members  of  the  union  will  be  employed. 
A  certain  man  is  a  member  of  the  union. 
Therefore,  he  must  be  employed. 

No  persons  lacking  in  imagination  are  good  public  speakers. 
Some  persons  lacking  in  imagination  are  good  logicians. 
Therefore,  some  good  public  speakers  are  not  good  logicians. 

The  above  cases  of  deductive  reasoning  may  give  us 
some  difficulty  in  analyzing,  but  certainly  the  fallacy  is 
apparent  enough.  In  every  case  both  major  and  minor 
premises  seem  unassailable;  but  in  no  case  does  the  con- 
clusion follow  from  the  premises;  the  error  is  that  of  non 
sequitur,  the  term,  to  repeat,  which  covers  all  errors  in 
the  reasoning  process  of  deduction.  Generally,  all  that  is 
necessary  to  detect  the  error  is  to  reduce  the  deduction 
to  the  form  of  a  syllogism. 


FALLACIES  121 

In   induction   each  form   of   reasoning   has   a   fallacy 

peculiar  to  itself.     In  the  case  of  general-  „  „    . 
.      .        .     .        „    ,   ,                    ,.  Fallacies  in 
ization,  it  IS  called  hasty  generalization;  in  the  reason- 
analogy,  false  analogy;  in  causation,  mistaken  i^g  process: 

,      ,  ,.  induction 
causal  relation. 

The  error  in  hasty  generalization  consists  in  generalizing 
from  insufficient  or  improperly  selected  samples.  We 
all  have  preconceived  opinions  about  most 
things,  some  handed  down  to  us  and  some  erali^tion 
which  we  ourselves  have  formed.  To  de- 
fend them  we  note  a  case  here  and  there,  and,  in  our  eager- 
ness, immediately  generalize.  To  meet  the  fallacy  it  is 
necessary  to  point  out  merely  that  not  enough  cases  are 
observed  to  warrant  a  conclusion  about  all  other  cases,  or 
that  the  cases  observed  are  not  typical.  Sir  WiUiam  Ram- 
say is  commenting  on  this  error  calls  our  attention  to  the 
fact  that  even  accurate  statistics  may  lie.  In  an  endeavor 
to  justify  the  use  of  alcohoUc  liquors  as  a  beverage  in 
tropical  countries,  it  was  stated  that  fifty  per  cent  of  the 
total  abstainers  in  a  certain  regiment  in  India  had  died 
within  a  year.  It  turned  out  that  the  whole  number  of 
total  abstainers  was  two,  and  that  one  while  taking  a 
walk  had  been  eaten  by  a  tiger.  Besides  this  error  of 
generalizing  hastily  from  insufficient  or  improperly  selected 
samples,  there  is  another  for  which  we  must  watch.  It 
will  be  remembered  that  a  generahzation  "breaks  down 
as  an  exception  is  noted ;  and  it  is  weakened  by  the  possi- 
bility at  least  of  the  appearance  of  an  exception."  Where 
we  encounter  an  exceptional  case  it  is  invalid  to  argue 
from  a  generalization,  but  we  cannot  call  the  error  a  fal- 
lacy of  hasty  generalization:  the  generalization  may  be 
true  enough;  there  would  be  no  valid  rules  if  all  rules 


122  SUBSTANCE 

which  had  exceptions  were  called  invalid.  The  error  here 
is  as  a  matter  of  fact  begging  the  question,  because  we 
unjustifiedly  assume  as  a  premise  that  the  case  in  ques- 
tion is  typical,  while  it  really  is  an  exception.  There  are 
cases,  on  the  other  hand,  in  which  the  neglect  of  negative 
instances  does  make  a  hasty  generalization.  If  a  great 
number  of  negative  instances  exist,  we  cannot  generalize. 
For  instance,  it  would  be  a  hasty  generalization  to  say 
that  most  varieties  of  pheasants  are  brilliantly  colored, 
because  in  all  varieties  the  hen  pheasant  is  comparatively 
dull  colored.  Again,  to  say  that  there  are  no  white 
pheasants  is  a  hasty  generalization,  although  the  number 
of  negative  instances  unobserved  is  very  small.  To  com- 
mit the  fallacy  of  hasty  generalization  consists  not  in 
faihng  to  note  an  exception  when  we  find  it,  but  in  failing 
to  find  the  negative  instances  or  in  generalizing  from  in- 
sufficient or  improperly  selected  samples. 

The  second  fallacy  to  be  found  in  the  reasoning  process 
is  that  of  false  analogy;  the  error  consists  in  comparing 

things  which   are   not   similar  in  relevant 
False  analogy  _,,, 

respects.    The  great  example  oi  the  error  is 

the  comparison  of  two  things  utterly  unlike  in  themselves 

but  superficially  similar  in  some  respect.    What  is  good 

merely  as  an  illustration  we  are  prone  to  consider  good  as 

proof.     Similes  and  metaphors,  where  the  comparison  is 

figurative  rather  than  literal,  are  good  to  secure  force  and 

clearness,  but  they  are  worthless  as  actual  proof.    It  is  well 

enough  to  compare  the  large  navy  advocates  to  a  fisherman : 

"For  angling-rod  he  took  a  sturdy  oak; 
For  line,  a  cable  that  in  storm  ne'er  broke; 
His  hook  he  baited  with  a  dragon's  tail, — 
He  sat  upon  a  rock,  and  bobb'd  for  whale." 


FALLACIES  123 

Th's  undoubtedly  expresses  in  an  amusing  and  forcible 
fashion  the  ideas  of  the  speaker  that  a  navy  is  like  a  whale, 
which  is  supposed  to  be  no  good  after  it  is  secured.  Never- 
theless it  certainly  does  not  'prove  that  a  navy  is  no  good. 
The  metaphor  is  an  illustration  and  not  proof.  The  re- 
semblance is  not  in  things  angled  for,  but  simply  in  the 
act  of  angling.  If  it  be  remembered  that  the  basis  of  the 
analogy  lies  in  the  implied  premise  that  an  underlying 
cause  working  upon  one  case  will  work  similarly  upon 
another  similar  case,  we  will  realize  how  similar  the  cases 
must  be.  It  is,  of  course,  absurd  to  say  that  a  certain 
cause  which  makes  a  whale  of  no  value  will  also  make  a 
large  navy  useless.  Figurative  language  is  not  the  only 
place  where  we  find  false  analogies.  The  tendency  to  mis- 
use the  argument  from  example  is  much  more  prevalent. 
There  is  always  a  tendency  for  those  who  are  advocating 
the  adoption  of  a  new  political  measure  to  commit  this 
fallacy.  We  are  urged,  for  instance,  to  adopt  government 
ownership  of  railroads  because  it  has  been  successful  in 
Germany.  While  Germany  and  the  United  States  have 
many  resemblances,  does  not  the  analogy  prove  false 
when  we  consider  the  very  great  differences  that  exist  in 
governmental  administration?  A  highly  centralized 
monarchy  might  successfully  operate  railroads  when  a 
federal  republic  could  not.  It  is  only  basically  similar 
phenomena  which  have  similar  causes.  Where  the  re- 
semblance is  merely  superficial  or  limited  to  the  one  thing 
for  which  we  are  comparing  them,  the  analogy  is  valuable 
for  illustrative  purpose  but  not  for  proof;  to  offer  it  as 
proof  is  to  commit  the  fallacy  of  false  analogy. 

The  third  fallacy  which  occurs  in  the  reasoning  process 
is  called  mistaken  causal  relation  or  false  cause;  the  error 


124  SUBSTANCE 

consists  in  assuming  without  justification  that  a  given 
cause  will  produce  a  certain  effect,  or  that  a  given  effect 
Mistaken  ^^  ^^^  result  of  a  certain  cause.  The  logi- 
causal  cians'  name  for  this  fallacy  is  non  causa  pro 

relation  causa,  the  regarding  as  a  cause  something 

that  is  not  a  cause.  "  It  is  due  to  the  lack  of  discrimination 
between  a  mere  coincidence  and  a  veritable  cause."  As  a 
rule  attention  is  drawn  to  the  fact  that  in  certain  cases 
one  thing  was  followed  by  another.  It  is  immediately 
assumed  that  the  one  caused  the  other.  This  special  form 
of  a  mistaken  causal  relation  is  called  post  hoc  ergo  propter 
hoc,  after  this  and  therefore  on  account  of  it.  Many  of 
our  popular  superstitions  illustrate  a  combination  of  this 
fallacy  with  that  of  hasty  generahzation.  The  saying 
that  when  thirteen  sit  down  to  dinner  one  will  die  within 
a  year,  is  an  example.  First  there  is  the  fallacy  of  taking  a 
mere  coincidence  for  a  causal  relation.  Some  one  has 
noticed  that  in  a  certain  case  after  thirteen  had  eaten 
together  one  of  the  party  died.  He  assumed  that  the  death 
resulted  from  the  dinner.  Several  such  cases  led  to  the 
generahzation  that  whenever  thirteen  ate  together  one 
would  die  within  a  year.  This  was  a  hasty  generalization, 
because  insufficient  cases  were  observed.  The  cases  where 
the  result  happened  are  remembered  and  used  as  a  basis 
for  the  inference;  those  where  no  death  followed  are  forgot- 
ten. Nearly  every  superstition  contains  these  two  fallacies 
of  mistaken  causal  relation  and  hasty  generahzation. 
In  the  reasoning  process,  to  sum  up,  there  are  three 

fallacies,   one  for  each  form  of  inductive 
Summary  .  ^,  ,      ,  ^'     j- 

reasomng.    They  are  hasty  generahzation, 

false  analogy,  and  mistaken  causal  relation.     A  special 

form  of  the  latter  is  called  post  hoc  ergo  propter  hoc;  it 


FALLACIES  125 

consists  in  the  confusion  of  a  mere  sequence  witii  a  causal 
connection. 

The  final  group  of  fallacies  are  those  which  concern  the 
conclusion.  In  each  case  we  arrive  at  a  different  conclu- 
sion from  that  which  we  started  out  to  Fallacies  oc- 
prove.  The  names  of  the  fallacies  are  ignor-  curring  in  the 
ing  the  question,  shifting  ground,  and  defini-  ^^^^  usion 
tion  or  equivocation. 

The  whole  group  is  really  a  case  of  ignoring  the  question 
in  so  far  as  we  do  not  meet  squarely  the  point  at  issue. 
We  use  the  general  term,  however,  to  apply 
to  the  most  flagrant  instance  where  pur-  Quest'on  ^ 
posely  and  often  deliberately  we  divert  at- 
tention from  the  point  at  issue  by  appealing  to  some  lower 
emotion  or  motive.  The  two  common  forms  of  deliber- 
ately ignoring  the  question  are  the  argumentum  ad  homi- 
nem,  and  the  argumentum  ad  populum.  The  first  takes  the 
form  of  a  personal  attack  upon  some  one  connected  with 
the  controversy.  The  much-quoted  example  is  the  case 
of  the  attorney  for  the  defendant;  he  handed  to  the  bar- 
rister who  was  to  plead  the  case  the  brief  bearing  these 
words:  "No  case;  abuse  the  plaintiff."  It  is  an  example 
of  ignoring  the  question  to  say  that  a  man's  preaching  is 
"no  good"  because  he  does  not  practice  what  he  preaches. 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  brings  out  the  fallacy  when  he  says 
that  because  he  is  only  able  to  "practice  skim  milk  is  no 
reason  why  he  should  not  preach  cream."  Another  illus- 
tration is  that  of  a  man  noted  as  a  lecturer  who  has  been 
made  to  say  that  he  would  not  speak  on  temperance  from 
the  same  platform  with  another  man  equally  eminent  as 
a  pugilist,  because  the  prize-fighter  had  once  drunk  to 
excess  and  was  not  fit  to  talk  about  prohibition.     It  is 


126  SUBSTANCE 

conceivable  that  he  was  on  account  of  this  all  the  better 
fitted  to  talk  on  the  evils  of  intemperance.  Ignoring  the 
question  by  arguing  ad  hominem  consists,  in  short,  by- 
drawing  attention  from  the  point  at  issue  to  the  personal 
characteristics  of  one  who  speaks  about  it.  We  may  ig- 
nore the  question,  however,  not  only  by  attacking  a  person 
but  also  by  appealing  to  the  lower  emotions  of  the  au- 
dience, the  argumentum  ad  populum.  This  may  take  the 
form  of  ridicule  of  the  whole  subject  without  reference 
to  the  merits  of  the  question  at  issue.  The  treatment  of 
the  woman  suffrage  question  by  the  so-called  comic  papers 
is  an  illustration.  Again  it  may  take  the  form  of  an  ap- 
peal to  prejudice.  Lynchings  in  the  South  generally 
result  not  from  proof  of  the  negro's  guilt,  but  from  hatred 
of  the  race  and  of  the  crime.  Sometimes  the  appeal  is 
to  a  higher  emotion,  but  it  is  still  beside  the  point.  It  is 
the  practice  of  demagogues  and  of  political  orators  to 
wave  the  flag  and  consider  the  point  proved. 

The  second  kind  of  fallacy  in  proving  a  different  con- 
clusion is  not  so  bad  as  the  first  where  the  question  is 
utterly  ignored;  an  attempt  is  usually  made 

und^  to  prove  a  point,  but  the  particular  point 

at  issue  is  evaded.  It  is  called  shifting 
ground.  Many  times  when  some  one  is  cornered  in  an 
argument  the  reply  is,  "Yes,  that  is  true,  but.  .  ."  The 
human  mind  so  dislikes  to  admit  it  is  wrong  that  it  will 
attempt  to  evade  defeat  by  maintaining  a  qualified  con- 
tention. A  gunboat  was  steaming  up  Boston  Harbor. 
Approaching  it  at  right  angles  was  a  ferryboat.  It  was 
apparent  that  the  ferryboat  would  cross  the  channel 
immediately  in  front  of  the  destroyer.  One  or  both  ves- 
sels would  have  to  turn  out.    The  gunboat  glided  along 


I 


FALLACIES  127 

as  if  unaware  of  the  existence  of  its  lowly  sister.  Those 
of  us  on  the  ferryboat  started  a  discussion  whether  or  not 
government  vessels  are  subject  to  the  local  harbor  regula- 
tions. One  contentious  old  gentleman,  a  very  devil's  own 
advocate,  claimed  that  they  are  subject.  When  driven 
from  that  position  he  claimed  that  anyway  you  couldn't 
build  a  pier  without  the  city's  permission.  He  next  argued 
that  a  state  could  build  a  bridge  over  a  navigable  stream 
situated  entirely  within  its  own  boundaries.  When  re- 
minded that  the  constitution  gives  the  federal  govern- 
ment control  of  all  navigable  streams,  he  triumphantly 
asserted  that  the  state  could  build  a  bridge  over  a 
brook. 

The  third  fallacy  of  proving  a  different  conclusion  con- 
sists in  using  a  word  or  term  with  another  meaning  than 

that  intended ;  it  is  called  a  fallacy  of  defini- 

.         j_.  CI        .-  J.I.        •       Definition  or 

tion  or  equivocation,     bometimes  the  mis-    equivocation 

take  is  made  in  the  beginning;  sometimes 
in  the  course  of  the  argument.  In  the  latter  case  it  gen- 
erally is  also  a  case  of  shifting  ground.  The  error  gener- 
ally arises  in  the  use  of  words  or  phrases  which  have 
more  than  one  meaning,  in  more  than  one  sense,  or  in 
a  way  that  was  not  intended.  The  evident  illustra- 
tion is  the  one  turning  on  the  two  meanings  of  "demo- 
cratic" and  "repubUcan."  "It  is  a  generally  accepted 
principle  in  this  country  that  he  is  the  best  citizen  who  is 
the  most  democratic.  .  .  .  Therefore,  all  men  should 
vote  the  Democratic  ticket."  In  the  same  way  it  has  been 
argued  that  a  republican  form  of  government  is  the  best; 
therefore,  we  should  vote  the  Republican  ticket.  Another 
illustration  is  offered  by  the  cheap  cross-examiner  in  our 
law  courts.    The  witness  is  asked  if  he  knows  how  far  the 


128  SUBSTANCE 

plaintiff  was  from  the  machine  when  the  driver  sounded 
the  horn. 

"Ten  feet." 

"Do  you  know  he  was? " 

"Yes." 

"You  say  that  you  Tcnow  this  man  was  just  ten  feet 
away.  What  makes  you  say  that  you  know  this?  Can 
you  swear  to  it?  Could  he  not  have  been  nine  or  eleven 
feet  away?  " 

There  is  an  evident  fallacy  here.  The  lawyer  uses  the 
word  "know"  at  first  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  having  an 
impression;  later,  in  order  to  confuse  and  discredit  the 
witness,  he  uses  it  in  the  sense  of  being  absolutely  certain. 
He  shifts  ground  from  one  meaning  of  "know"  to  another. 

This  last  group  of  fallacies,  to  summarize,  all  consist  in 
proving  a  different  conclusion  from  that  which  is  intended. 

The  first  error  is  the  very  reprehensible  one 
Summary 

of  ignoring  the  question  altogether;  no  at- 
tempt is  made  to  convince  the  mind,  but  an  appeal  is  made 
to  the  prejudices  or  passions  of  the  audience  to  get  sup- 
port. The  second  error  is  that  of  shifting  ground  from  the 
original  proposition  to  a  quahfication  of  it  or  to  an  en- 
tirely different  one.  The  third  error  is  that  of  equivoca- 
tion; words  or  phrases  are  used  in  more  than  one  sense, 
or  in  a  different  sense  from  that  generally  understood. 


CHAPTER  IX 
PERSUASION 

After  taking  a  course  in  argument,  a  student  of  Hi- 
bernian ancestry  exclaimed  to  his  instructor,  "I  see  how 
you  get  conviction  all  right,  but  it  looks  to    The  nature 
me  as  if  persuasion  was  just  being  born    of  persua- 
Irish."  ='°° 

There  is  perhaps  a  germ  of  truth  in  this  remark  and  it 
may  be  that  the  persuasive  element  in  public  speaking  is 
more  generally  inborn  than  acquired.  Nevertheless  there 
are  certain  principles  which  it  will  be  well  for  us  to  con- 
sider. 

We  have  seen  that  the  object  of  argument  is  to  bring 
the  mind  of  some  other  person  into  conformity  with  our 
own.  In  so  far  as  we  do  this  by  direct  appeal  to  the  rea- 
soning faculties  only,  we  call  the  process  conviction,  and 
if  man  were  merely  a  thinking  machine,  the  process  of 
conviction  would  be  all  that  there  would  be  to  argument. 
Everyone  knows,  however,  that  men  are  far  from  being 
reasoning  machines.  Every  day  we  see  apparently  intelli- 
gent men  acting  in  the  most  important  affairs  of  life  al- 
most without  thought  and  as  a  result  of  impulse.  If  we 
could  be  sure  that  the  results  of  reasoning  were  always 
right,  there  would  be  but  little  harm  in  leaving  the  sub- 
ject of  argument  after  a  study  of  pure  reasoning.  But 
the  human  mind  is  imperfect  and  its  operation  inaccurate, 

and  we  all  recognize  that  many  times  things  that  we  feel, 

129 


130  SUBSTANCE 

are  more  to  be  depended  upon  than  those  that  we  think 
we  know.  For  thousands  of  men  and  women  to  spend 
their  time  out  of  doors  on  a  cold  autumn  afternoon  watch- 
ing twenty-two  young  men  endeavor  to  carry  a  leather 
ball  a  few  yards  one  way  or  the  other  appears,  when  stated 
in  the  language  of  logic,  the  height  of  absurdity.  The 
veriest  tyro  can  construct  a  logical  argument  to  show  that 
such  action  should  be  condemned,  and  yet  as  long  as 
young  men  have  red  blood  in  their  veins  and  physical 
prowess  is  one  of  the  delights  of  life,  some  men  will  de- 
light in  playing  football  and  others  will  delight  in  watch- 
ing them.  The  trouble  with  those  misguided  individuals 
who  think  that  life  is  merely  a  succession  of  days,  and 
man  a  mechanical  device  which  should  operate  with  me- 
chanical exactness  is  that  they  ignore  the  great  human 
element  in  the  world,  which  after  all  is  the  element  that 
makes  life  worth  living.  It  is  because  man  is  man  that 
there  is  another  side  to  argument  than  mere  conviction. 
The  same  evidence  should  perhaps  produce  the  same  re- 
sult whether  presented  in  print,  in  the  halting  language 
of  a  schoolboy,  the  periods  of  a  statesman,  or  the  verses 
of  a  poet,  but  the  fact  is  that  such  is  not  the  case.  The 
process  of  appealing  by  speech  to  human  emotions  is 
called  persuasion,  and  both  conviction  and  persuasion 
are  necessary  in  practically  every  speech.  It  is  per- 
haps true  that  of  the  two  conviction  seems  the  more 
necessary.  It  is  better  to  have  a  thought  poorly  ex- 
pressed than  to  have  merely  meaningless  words  and 
empty  phrases.  In  fact,  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  per- 
suasion existing  without  conviction,  but  it  is  about  as 
difficult  to  imagine  conviction  accomplishing  much  with- 
out persuasion. 


PERSUASION  131 

Persuasion  manifests  itself  in  many  ways.  The  per- 
sonal appearance  of  the  speaker,  his  dress,  his  manner, 
the  environment  in  which  he  speaks,  all  have  their  effect, 
and  a  trained  and  careful  speaker  pays  attention  to  them 
all.  For  the  present  we  are  to  consider  persuasion  with 
reference  to  the  composition  of  the  argument  and  not 
with  regard  to  its  delivery. 

Arguments  depend  a  great  deal  for  their  success  upon 
the  speaker's  understanding  of  the  relation  that  exists  be- 
tween him  and  his  audience.    It  is  the  ap-    _,  ,  ^.        . 
„    ,  .        ,    .       ,  1    ^        1  Relation  of 

preciation  of  this  relation  that  makes  one    speaker  and 

man   succeed   where   another  fails.     Now    audience 

di3r3.ctGr  or 
this  relation  is  not  a  fixed  one  by  any  means,    audience 

but  varies  so  much  that  even  an  experienced 
public  speaker  will  rarely  find  the  problem  that  confronts 
him  when  he  rises  to  speak  like  anything  that  he  has  met 
before.  Suppose,  for  example,  that  a  pubUc  official  is  an 
authority  upon  naval  affairs,  and  desires  to  convince  peo- 
ple of  the  necessity  of  a  material  increase  of  the  navy. 
His  knowledge  is  ample  and  it  may  be  assumed  that  he 
has  at  his  command  all  the  facts  which  are  essential.  If  he 
should  carefully  prepare  an  argument  in  favor  of  his  propo- 
sition, it  would  seem  at  first  sight  as  if  he  might  eventually 
evolve  a  composition  which  was  practically  perfect  and 
which  he  could  deliver  upon  any  occasion  with  the  feeling 
that  it  completely  covered  the  ground  and  could  not  be  im- 
proved upon.  The  facts,  the  reasoning,  and  the  result  to 
be  achieved  are  all  the  same.  Why  should  there  ever  be 
any  necessity  for  variation?  Yet  this  same  authority 
may  be  called  upon  in  four  successive  days  to  speak  at  a 
hearing  before  a  congressional  committee,  to  a  class  of 
students  in  a  university,  to  an  audience  in  a  popular  lee- 


132  SUBSTANCE 

ture  course  drawn  from  all  kinds  and  conditions  of  men, 
and  at  a  dinner  of  naval  officers.  Can  we  imagine  any 
speech  that  could  by  any  possibility  fit  all  four  of  those 
occasions?  The  facts  upon  which  he  relies  cannot  be 
varied  and  his  reasoning  must  be  the  same  in  each  case, 
and  yet  if  he  is  to  be  successful,  he  must  vary  the  language 
of  his  speech  to  suit  his  audience.  The  first  requisite, 
therefore,  of  a  persuasive  speech  lies  in  adaptation  to  the 
audience  to  which  it  is  addressed. 

Not  only  is  it  important  to  consider  the  character  of 
the  audience,  but  we  must  also  pay  attention  to  its 
attitude.  The  problem  that  confronts  a 
audience °  speaker  changes  according  to  the  friendli- 
ness or  hostility  of  the  audience.  If  the 
hearers  are  very  friendly  to  the  speaker,  they  are  obvi- 
ously ready  to  be  convinced.  They  already  either  believe 
or  half  believe  in  his  proposition.  With  such  an  audience 
one  can  take  much  for  granted.  The  facts  upon  which 
the  speaker  relies  are  either  known  or  are  readily  ad- 
mitted when  set  forth.  The  purpose  of  the  speech,  in- 
deed, is  not  to  form  a  new  conviction  in  the  minds  of  the 
audience,  but  rather  to  strengthen  the  belief  that  is  there 
already.  This  is  the  problem  that  confronts  the  political 
speaker  who  is  generally  talking  to  members  of  his  own 
party,  or  the  minister  whose  parishioners  ordinarily  be- 
lieve in  the  truths  which  he  is  expounding.  At  times, 
however,  a  speaker  is  unfortunate  enough  to  be  obliged 
to  speak  to  an  audience  that  is  absolutely  hostile  to  him. 
It  is  not  probable  that  he  will  be  able  to  accompUsh  much, 
and  yet  the  little  that  he  accomplishes  may  do  his  cause 
more  good  than  he  could  achieve  in  any  other  way.  If 
you  cannot  convince  a  hostile  audience,  you  may  at  least 


I 


PERSUASION  133 

set  them  thinking,  and  the  fruit  of  your  labor  may  mani- 
fest itself  long  after  the  speech  is  delivered.  Probably 
all  that  can  be  accomplished  is  to  neutralize  the  hostility 
of  the  audience  to  some  extent,  but  that  result  may  be 
well  worth  the  endeavor.  In  striving  to  be  persuasive 
in  such  a  case,  however,  we  should  not  forget  that  the 
argument  should  be  exact,  nothing  should  be  taken  for 
granted,  and  the  endeavor  of  the  speaker  should  be  to 
compel  agreement  by  the  sheer  weight  of  his  evidence. 
More  frequently  we  are  called  upon  to  address  audiences 
that  are  neutral.  If  their  neutrality  is  not  accompanied 
by  lack  of  interest,  it  gives  the  speaker  what  is  perhaps 
his  best  opportunity.  A  friendly  audience  may  tempt 
him  to  be  careless,  while  a  hostile  one  may  make  him 
over-cautious,  but  if  the  audience  is  neutral,  he  has  that 
which  is  a  blessing  to  any  speaker,  an  impartial  tribunal 
before  which  to  argue. 

The  audience  is  only  one  factor,  however,  in  the  rela- 
tion that  exists  between  a  speaker  and  those  whom  he  is 
addressing.  The  other  factor  is  the  speaker 
himself.  There  are  certain  attributes  of  a  ^jjg  speaker 
public  speaker  which  seem  to  be  necessary 
to  his  success  and  which  should  be  manifest  in  his  argu- 
ment. Three  of  the  most  important  are  good  nature,  tact, 
and  good  taste. 

It  is  very  difficult  to  convince  people  by  an  argument 

which  shows  ill  temper.    It  is  not  necessary  that  a  speaker 

should  flatter,  or  amuse,  or  entertain  his    _,     , 

.    .  Goodnature 

audience,  but  he  certamly  must  not  irritate 

them.    If,  in  speaking  in  the  face  of  direct  opposition,  he 

loses  his  temper,  he  is  more  than  likely  to  lose  his  case. 

An  audience  may  like  to  hear  a  forceful,  vivid,  and  aggres- 


134  SUBSTANCE 

sive  argument,  but  it  will  object  decidedly  if  it  is  accom- 
panied by  any  personal  animosity  either  in  feeling  or  in 
manner.  There  are  certain  speakers  who  seem  instinc- 
tively to  take  an  attitude  that  is  hostile  to  humanity. 
The  world  is  wrong  and  they  soon  become  ill-natured 
scolds,  railing  at  existing  conditions.  An  argument  de- 
livered in  that  vein  is  more  likely  to  arouse  opposition 
than  to  secure  belief.  Without  being  servile  in  sub- 
mitting himself  to  the  supposed  views  of  his  audience,  a 
speaker  should  endeavor  to  be  pleasant  and  agreeable. 
He  should  treat  an  opponent  courteously  and  pleasantly 
before  the  audience  even  though  he  feels  that  pleasant 
and  courteous  treatment  is  not  deserved. 

Tact  is  nearly  akin  to  good  nature.  There  are  certain 
people  in  the  community  who  seem  to  delight  in  saying 
and  doing  things  which  make  their  neighbors 
and  friends  uncomfortable.  They  too  often 
preface  their  assertions  by  the  remark,  "I  am  a  plain, 
blunt  man,  and  accustomed  to  say  what  I  mean,"  or  by 
something  similar  thereto,  as  if  plainness  and  bluntness 
were  necessarily  virtues.  "While  these  people  may  be  an 
essential  part  of  the  general  scheme  of  humanity,  it  seems 
that  the  other  extreme  is  more  to  be  recommended.  We 
all  have  a  certain  sympathy  for  the  witness  in  one  of  the 
rural  counties  who  asked  the  judge  to  excuse  him  from 
taking  the  oath.  He  explained  in  a  confidential  aside  that 
he  was  a  candidate  for  coroner,  and  that  while  he  was 
willing  to  tell  the  truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  nearly 
all  the  people  in  the  court  room  were  his  constituents, 
and  he  would  like  to  be  excused  from  telling  the  whole 
truth.  But  tact  does  not  necessarily  imply  any  element 
whatever  of  deceit.    In  an  argument  it  means  merely  the 


PERSUASION  135 

avoidance  of  those  things  which  are  likely  to  distract  the 
attention  of  your  hearers  from  your  thought.  Not  long 
ago  a  minister  was  invited  to  deliver  an  address  at  one 
of  the  local  penal  institutions  in  Massachusetts.  He 
doubtless  felt  that  he  had  a  great  opportunity  of  doing 
good,  but  it  does  not  seem  essential  to  the  deUvery  of  his 
message  that  he  should  have  told  his  audience  that  fact 
and  then  driven  the  point  home  by  explaining  to  them 
that  it  was  rarely  a  clergyman  had  an  opportunity  of 
addressing  an  audience  composed  entirely  of  bad  men. 
A  Httle  care  in  the  composition  and  dehvery  of  an  argu- 
ment will  enable  a  speaker  to  avoid  thoughts  and  expres- 
sions which  have  a  tendency  to  antagonize  his  audience. 
A  speaker  should  not  allow  himself  to  express  his  opinions 
except  in  so  far  as  is  necessary  upon  the  subject  in  ques- 
tion. If  you  are  arguing  for  prohibition,  there  is  cer- 
tainly no  advantage  in  reminding  your  hearers  that  you 
are  also  a  behever  in  the  aboUtion  of  capital  punishment, 
and  the  disadvantage  is  obvious.  Tact  consists  in  the 
recognition  by  the  speaker  of  the  position  in  which  he 
is  placed  and  the  avoidance  of  extraneous  matter  which 
is  Ukely  to  produce  conflict  in  the  minds  of  his  hearers. 

The  third  attribute  of  good  argument  which  we  have 
to  consider  is  good  taste.  As  has  been  pointed  out,  the 
audience  is  inclined  to  put  the  speaker  upon  q  j  x  ^g 
a  pedestal.  If  he  is  wise,  he  will  stay  there 
and  not  endeavor  to  lower  himself  in  his  hearers'  estima- 
tion. Good  taste  differs  from  tact  and  good  nature  in 
that  it  is  far  more  difficult  to  acquire.  Good  nature  may 
be  simulated  even  if  not  felt,  while  tact  is  really  the  result 
of  forethought,  but  a  lack  of  good  taste  will  betray  itself 
upon  the  pubhc  platform  just  as  readily  as  it  does  in 


136  SUBSTANCE 

private  life.  It  is  essential  to  avoid  vulgarity  in  any  form. 
Students  should  realize  that  there  is  no  audience  before 
which  they  will  ever  have  to  speak  where  their  argument 
will  be  strengthened  by  a  vulgar  story  or  a  jest  with  a 
questionable  meaning.  All  exaggerations  in  manner  and 
speech  should  be  avoided  just  as  they  should  be  avoided 
in  ordinary  society.  A  prominent  instructor  in  elocution 
some  twenty  years  ago  was  accustomed  to  tell  his  classes 
that  a  speaker  should  always  address  his  audience  with 
exactly  the  same  care  which  he  would  use  in  addressing 
a  lady.  If  this  is  true  with  regard  to  the  delivery  of  the 
speech,  it  certainly  must  be  true  with  regard  to  its  com- 
position. The  student  can  rest  assured  that  if  his  argu- 
ment contains  anything  that  offends  the  sensibilities  of 
his  audience,  his  influence  over  them  is  practically  de- 
stroyed. 

The  possession  of  good  nature,  tact,  and  good  taste  is, 
however,  somewhat  superficial.  They  are  attributes  of  a 
/-J  1-x-  f  good  argument  rather  than  parts  of  it. 
good  argu-  There  are  at  least  two  qualities,  however, 
ment—  which  seem  to  be  essential  if  an  argument 

is  to  have  any  persuasive  effect.  These  are 
sincerity  and  simplicity.  Sincerity  in  the  speaker  is 
necessary  to  produce  belief  in  the  audience.  We  are  so 
constituted  by  nature  that  we  cannot  be  affected  by  the 
argument  of  a  man  who  does  not  himself  believe  what  he 
is  saying.  The  argument  may  be  true  and  from  other 
Ups  might  be  convincing,  but  if  we  feel  that  the  speaker 
himself  does  not  believe  what  he  is  saying,  the  ever  pres- 
ent thought  in  our  minds  is,  why  should  we  believe  it 
if  he  does  not,  and  everything  that  he  says  is  clouded  at 
once  by  doubt  and  suspicion.    Now  the  only  successful 


PERSUASION  137 

way  to  produce  an  impression  of  sincerity  is  to  be  sincere. 
For  many  men  this  is  not  a  difficult  task.  Many  a  man 
has  convinced  himself  by  his  own  eloquence,  and  perhaps 
a  majority  of  us  find  it  only  too  easy  to  believe  the  side  in 
defence  of  which  we  have  composed  our  argument.  The 
legal  profession  would  suffer  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that 
man  is  by  nature  partisan.  It  is  safe  to  assert  that  in  a 
very  large  majority  of  the  cases  that  are  tried,  the  attor- 
neys firmly  believe  personally  in  the  proposition  which 
they  are  defending.  If,  however,  a  student  after  a  careful 
study  of  his  argument  finds  that  he  does  not  believe  what 
he  is  saying,  he  may  be  assured  that  that  argument  should 
never  be  delivered.  Sincerity  does  not  necessarily  mean 
that  we  should  agree  with  all  that  other  people  have  said 
or  written  upon  our  side  of  the  question.  Different  men 
may  support  the  same  measure  for  entirely  different 
reasons.  Some  time  ago,  after  a  particularly  acrimonious 
debate  in  the  state  legislature  as  to  the  division  of  a  cer- 
tain town,  the  adoption  of  the  division  was  submitted, 
as  is  the  custom,  to  the  voters  of  the  town,  and  much  to 
the  surprise  of  everyone,  it  appeared  that  among  the 
people  of  the  town  themselves  there  was  practically  but 
one  opinion.  As  the  local  stage  driver  expressed  it,  "The 
fellows  at  the  south  end  of  the  town  thought  that  they 
ought  to  get  out  and  the  rest  of  us  agreed  with  them." 
Yet  it  is  probable  that  the  reasons  for  beUef  in  the  two 
sections  of  the  town  were  somewhat  different.  One  of 
the  ways  in  which  sincerity  manifests  itself  is  in  the  fair- 
ness with  which  you  discuss  the  question.  A  sincere 
man  does  not  misquote  the  other  side  nor  misstate  its 
position.  If  he  believes  in  his  case,  he  has  nothing  to 
conceal  at  any  point  in  the  argument.     There  can  be 


138  SUBSTANCE 

nothing  more  fallacious  than  the  belief  which  we  some- 
times hear  expressed,  particularly  in  intercollegiate  de- 
bating, that  it  is  good  policy  to  conceal  your  real  argument 
as  long  as  you  can,  in  order  that  the  other  side  may  not 
have  an  opportunity  to  reply  to  it.  The  speaker  should 
always  realize  that  you  can  never  conceal  anything  from 
your  opponents  without  concealing  it  from  your  audience 
and  from  the  judges,  and  they  are  going  to  resent  fully 
as  much  as  your  opponents  your  deception.  A  sincere 
man  will  believe  in  his  case,  and  because  of  that  belief 
will  be  willing  to  meet  his  opponent's  case  without  decep- 
tion or  subterfuge,  and  just  as  far  as  his  audience  is  im- 
pressed with  his  fairness  and  honesty,  it  will  be  impressed 
by  his  belief.  It  is  a  powerful  argument  in  our  minds 
when  we  find  an  honest  and  conscientious  man  beheving 
certain  things.  Insensibly  we  ask  ourselves  why  we  should 
not  also  believe  the  things  which  seem  so  evident  to  him. 
Sincerity  is  one  innate  quality  of  every  good  argument; 
the  other  essential  is  simplicity.    While  sincerity  must  be 

^    ,.  .        ,    felt,  simpUcity  may  be  acquired.     It  is  a 

Qualities  of  '  .    .       .    ,  .         . 

good  characteristic  of  the  expression  oi  an  argu- 

argument  ment  rather  than  of  the  argument  itself. 
Unfortunately  the  tendency  among  students 
of  argument  is  to  obscure  their  thought  through  what 
seems  to  be  an  endeavor  to  fill  space  or  time.  The  argu- 
ments offered  to  any  college  instructor  are  no  different  from 
the  other  compositions  submitted  to  him.  Nineteen  out  of 
twenty  could  be  rewritten  to  advantage  in  half  the  space. 
This  reduction  in  space  can  be  achieved  in  two  ways: 
first,  by  cutting  out  numberless  unnecessary  words,  and 
second,  by  using  shorter  words  in  the  place  of  longer 
ones;  this  can  be  accomplished  without  hurting  the  style 


PERSUASION  139 

of  the  writer.  In  the  first  place,  let  the  student  dismiss 
from  his  mind  the  thought  that  there  is  any  "oratorical 
style."  Thomas  Went  worth  Higginson  said  of  the  oratory 
of  Wendell  Phillips  that  it  was  conversation  raised  to  the 
highest  power.  Colonel  Higginson  undoubtedly  recognized 
that  it  was  not  merely  conversation,  because  we  all  know 
that  you  cannot  talk  to  an  audience  as  you  would  talk  to 
your  friends  by  your  fireside,  but  he  did  mean  that  it  had 
the  directness  which  is  the  distinguishing  quality  of  our 
ordinary  conversation.  An  argument  should  from  begin- 
ning to  end,  in  thought,  paragraph,  sentence  and  word, 
proceed  directly  to  the  goal  to  be  achieved.  In  fact,  we 
may  test  our  work  by  carefully  examining  it  and  seeing 
if  we  find  anything  that  is  unnecessary.  We  should  be 
able  to  take  it  to  pieces  in  its  minutest  parts,  and  if  every 
part  does  not  tend  to  prove  the  main  proposition,  we  will 
not  make  a  mistake  in  striking  it  out.  This  directness 
can  be  achieved  both  by  sticking  closely  to  the  subject, 
and  by  avoiding  long  and  involved  sentences.  Mark 
Twain  described  a  German  sentence  as  one  in  which  a 
writer  dives  in  upon  one  side  of  the  ocean  and  finally 
emerges  upon  the  other  side  of  his  verbal  Atlantic  with 
his  verb  in  his  mouth.  Whether  our  German  friends 
will  admit  that  this  good-natured  criticism  is  true  or  not, 
it  is  a  fact  that  the  desire  for  exactness  frequently  leads  to 
qualifying  phrases  and  expressions  which  confuse  the 
thought.  The  English  that  lawyers  use  in  drafting  instru- 
ments in  which  they  are  endeavoring  to  anticipate  every 
possible  contingency  and  provide  for  it  is  the  subject 
of  much  well-deserved  ridicule.  As  a  general  rule,  the 
student  will  find  it  safe  to  avoid  quaUfying  phrases  and 
words.     While  every  sentence  cannot  be  a  short  one, 


140  SUBSTANCE 

many  sentences,  even  those  of  the  best  writers,  might  be 
shorter  than  they  are  to  advantage.  Another  method  of 
obtaining  simphcity  is  to  be  natural.  There  is  no  reason 
why  an  argument  should  be  couched  in  language  that  the 
student  does  not  ordinarily  use.  When  President  Lincoln 
used  the  expression  "a  sugar-coated  pill"  and  President 
Roosevelt  spoke  of  a  "square  deal,"  no  one  misunderstood 
them  because  they  were  using  the  ordinary  language  in 
which  men  talk  to  each  other.  The  same  cannot  be  said, 
however,  when  President  Cleveland  coined  the  phrase 
"innocuous  desuetude."  Many  an  intelligent  man  had 
to  use  his  dictionary  before  he  found  out  exactly  what 
the  President  meant. 

Again,  it  should  be  reaUzed  that  the  shorter  words 
are  the  simpler.  One  of  the  greatest  orations,  if  not  the 
greatest,  ever  delivered  by  an  American  is  undoubtedly 
President  Lincoln's  speech  at  Gettysburg,  and  as  a 
work  of  art  it  is  noteworthy  for  its  simphcity.  While 
it  is  almost  desecration  to  dissect  it  in  order  to  hold 
it  up  as  an  example,  we  find  that  of  the  265  words  em- 
ployed, 194  are  of  one  syllable,  52  of  two  syllables,  12  of 
three  syllables  and  7  of  four  syllables,  and  all  are  included 
in  an  ordinary  vocabulary.  It  is  so  simple  that  we  are 
tempted  to  say  that  a  schoolboy  might  have  written  it, 
and  would  say  so  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  we  realize 
that  no  schoolboy  could  possibly  so  limit  himself.  We 
may  note  that  the  use  of  words  of  Saxon  derivation  instead 
of  those  from  the  Latin  will  ordinarily  help  us.  Simphcity 
is  brought  about  perhaps  more  by  what  we  leave  out  than 
by  what  we  put  in  our  speech.  We  should  certainly  avoid 
slang.  It  is  a  fact  that  much  of  the  slang  of  the  present 
day  is  direct  and  humorous  and  frequently  suggests  ideas 


PERSUASION  141 

with  a  vividness  which  is  tempting.  Nevertheless,  it  is  a 
cardinal  rule  of  writing  that  the  use  of  slang  tends  to 
detract  from  rather  than  add  to  the  expression  of  thought. 
In  the  same  way  we  should  avoid  colloquial  expressions, 
especially  if  we  are  speaking  to  a  general  audience  which 
may  not  understand  them.  It  is  also  wise  to  avoid  the 
use  of  foreign  phrases.  A  speech  which  bristles  with 
French  and  Latin  terms  may  show  the  extent  of  the 
author's  erudition,  but  it  never  will  express  his  thought 
as  well  as  the  ordinary  English  of  everyday  life. 

Persuasion  after  all  consists  in  pleasing  your  audience. 
It  is,  or  should  be,  a  frank  attempt  to  get  on  good  terms 
with  them  in  order  that  their  minds  may  jg  ^^q  ^gg  ^f 
be  open  to  receive  your  ideas.  In  so  far  persuasion 
as  it  does  not  seek  to  deceive  or  betray 
their  judgment  it  is  not  only  permissible  but  also  ad- 
visable. The  art  of  persuasive  composition  should  cause 
the  writer,  therefore,  to  clothe  his  thought  in  words  pleas- 
ingly arranged,  in  order  that  it  may  reach  the  minds  of 
his  hearers  with  undiminished  force. 


CHAPTER  X 

CLEARNESS 

The  construction  of  an  argument  has  often  been  com- 
pared to  the  building  of  a  house.    The  brief  is  the  frame- 
work, and  the  evidence  is  the  floor,  walls, 
QuaUties  of  .   ^^^  ^^  ^^     -g^^  ^^  ^^^^^  jg  finished 

style  ' 

without  windows,  painting,  and  the  other 

things  which  go  to  complete  the  building  and  to  make 
it  pleasing  to  the  eye.  We  may  in  the  same  way  have  an 
argument  on  a  good  framework,  and  have  good  evidence, 
but  if  the  whole  is  not  clear,  forcible  and  beautiful,  we 
cannot  call  it  artistic  or  even  effective.  Our  writing,  then, 
must  have,  besides  structure  and  evidence,  certain  qual- 
ities, and  these  are  called  clearness,  force,  and  beauty. 
The  quaUty  of  clearness  is  to  be  attained  in  part  by  an 
accurate,  pure  and  precise  choice  of  words,  and  in  part 

^     i-x_   e        by  a  strict  observance  of  the  three  prin- 
Quahty  of  •'  .  ^ 

clearness  se-  ciples    of    composition, — unity,    coherence, 

cured  by  the    ^^^   emphasis   or   mass.     In  this  chapter 
principles  or  .  ,     ,  xi  ^.^        r 

unity,  CO-        no  attempt  is  made  to  cover  the  matter  oi 

herence,  and  diction,  but  the  purpose  is  to  summarize 
for  review  the  best  thought  on  the  prin- 
ciples of  composition,  and  to  apply  these  as  specifically 
as  possible  to  argument.  The  first,  the  principle  of 
unity,  requires  that  every  sentence,  paragraph,  and 
whole  composition  group  itself  about  one  central  idea. 

The  second,   the  principle  of  coherence,   requires  that 

142 


CLEARNESS  143 

every  part  of  a  sentence,  paragraph,  and  whole  com- 
position should  be  closely  linked  (should  cohere)  to 
its  neighbor.  The  third,  the  principle  of  mass,  or  em- 
phasis, requires  that  the  various  parts  should  be  given 
space  and  position  important  in  proportion  to  their  own 
importance.  The  term  "mass"  seems  better  than  "em- 
phasis. "  "  Emphasis ' '  connotes  the  idea  of  actual  f orcible- 
ness.  As  here  used,  however,  it  does  not  necessarily  mean 
that:  it  means  that  the  particular  part  is  made  to  stand 
out  in  relation  to  other  parts,  not  positively  to  force  itself 
upon  our  attention.  It  is  a  state  of  being  emphatic  in 
relation  to  the  other  ideas  in  the  composition,  and  may 
not  be  actually  or  absolutely  a  forceful  statement.  Force 
is  a  quality  of  style  which  strikes  our  attention;  mass  is  a 
principle  of  style  which  gives  us  a  clear  impression  of  the 
relative  importance  of  the  various  ideas.  Mass  refers  to 
the  distribution  of  emphasis  among  the  various  constit- 
uents; force  is  the  quality  of  being  emphatic  as  a  whole. 
Mass,  in  short,  refers  to  relative,  and  force  to  absolute, 
emphasis.  Of  the  three  principles  which  go  to  constitute 
the  quaUty  of  clearness,  mass  governs  the  space  and  posi- 
tion to  be  assigned  to  the  ideas;  unity,  the  selection  of 
them;  coherence,  the  arrangement  and  connection  of 
them. 

These  principles  can  best  be  considered  by  studying 
how  they  may  be  secured  in  each  of  the  elements  of  com- 
position, the  whole  composition,  the  paragraph,  and  the 
sentence. 

In  the  whole  composition,  the  principle  of  unity  provides 
that  nothing  should  be  admitted  which  does  not  bear  di- 
rectly upon  the  theme  or  general  idea  of  the  argument. 
There  must  be  no  false  beginnings,  and  no  digressions. 


144  FORM 

Every  detail  must  directly  and  immediately  forward  the 
general  idea  of  the  whole.  No  better  way  of  attaining 
Unity  of  the  *^^  ^^°  ^^  found  than  the  carefully  worked 
whole  com-  out  brief  or  outline.  The  skeleton  form,  the 
position  visualization  process,  shows  up  the  ideas  in 

their  true  relation  to  the  whole  theme,  and  permits  of  no 
disguises  or  stowaways.  If  your  idea  fits  logically  into 
your  briefing,  then  you  may  be  sure  the  principle  of  unity 
is  not  violated. 

Not  only  must  we  be  careful  in  selecting  our  materials, 
but  we  must  so  arrange  them  that  each  part  shall  have 
Mass  of  the  ^^  amount  of  space  and  a  position  propor- 
whole  com-  tionate  to  its  importance.  The  principle  of 
position  mass,  or  emphasis,  therefore,  requires  that 

more  important  ideas  should  be  given  a  greater  amount 
of  space  and  a  more  striking  position  according  to  their 
importance.  Here,  too,  our  old  friend,  the  brief  or  outUne, 
is  indispensable.  By  visualizing  the  thoughts  it  enables 
us  to  compare  them,  to  judge  of  their  relative  importance, 
and  to  give  each  idea  a  due  amount  of  space.  In  general 
the  order  of  climax  should  be  observed;  we  should  work 
from  the  less  important  idea  to  the  more  important.  Here, 
in  particular,  the  visualization  of  the  ideas,  such  as  is  ef- 
fected by  the  outline  and  brief,  is  the  best  way  of  securing 
our  purpose. 

After  the  arrangement  of  the  ideas  in  the  composition 
comes  the  connection  of  them  so  that  they  shall  cohere 
Coherence  of  ^^  *^^^^S  together,  and  so  that  the  relations 
the  whole  of  one  part  to  another  shall  be  unmistakable, 
composition  rj.^^  principle  of  coherence  in  the  whole 
composition  requires  a  presentation  of  the  ideas  in  logical 
order,  linked  with  logical  transitions.  The  logical  connec- 


CLEARNESS  145 

tion  of  the  thoughts  can  be  shown  by  preUminary  state- 
ments of  the  plan  the  composition  is  to  follow,  by  sum- 
marizing paragraphs,  and  by  transitional  connecting  para- 
graphs. Here,  also,  the  brief  is  an  excellent  servant.  The 
whole  theory  of  the  component  parts  of  the  brief  is  based 
on  the  fundamental  principle  of  coherence,  an  orderly  and 
logical  arrangement  of  thoughts.  We  start  with  the 
known  fact,  the  occasion  for  the  discussion,  and  proceed 
through  the  history  and  conflict  of  opinions  to  the  state- 
ment of  the  main  issues — the  main  points  or  plan  which  the 
body  of  the  argument  is  to  follow.  Then  we  take  up  each 
of  these  points  in  order. 

The  analysis  made  necessary  by  the  brief  insures  coher- 
ence of  substance.  It  remains  merely  to  secure  coherence 
of  form  by  transitional  paragraphs,  short  summaries  of 
what  has  preceded,  and  preliminary  statements  of  what  is 
to  follow.  A  careful  observance  of  Suggestion  H,  page  202, 
is  the  best  way  to  take  care  of  these  matters.  Write  a 
short  separate  argument  on  each  issue.  Let  each  sub- 
argument  have  an  introduction,  a  body,  and  a  conclusion. 
Let  the  introduction  be  a  statement  of  the  issue,  and  the 
conclusion,  a  recapitulation  of  the  steps  in  the  proof  of 
that  issue. 

From  the  unity,  mass,  and  coherence  of  the  whole  com- 
position we  turn  to  the  ways  of  securing  these  principles 

in  the  paragraph.     In  the  matter  of  unity,  ,  . 

u  •         .u-  ^u  u  1       Unity  of  the 

a  paragraph  is  nothmg  more  than  a  whole    paragraph 

composition  on  a  small  scale.     The  para- 
graphs are  to  a  whole  composition  what  the  rooms  are  to 
a  house.    If  this  obvious  fact  is  kept  in  mind  much  of  the 
choppy  paragraphing  and  of  the  tiresome  lack  of  para- 
graphing will  be  avoided.    No  one  wants  a  house  that  is 


146  FORM 

all  closets;  nor  would  we  like  to  live  in  a  house  that  had 
no  rooms,  but  was  merely  one  great  hall.  Observe  the 
lack  of  clearness  that  is  manifested  in  the  following  para- 
graph: 

"The  foregoing  definition  of  the  word  'argumentation' 
is  transcribed  from  Webster's  International  Dictionary, 
and  perhaps  it  is  my  duty  as  a  teacher  of  justice  here  to 
record  my  faith  that  of  all  the  means  of  education  in  the 
English  language  that  James  Otis  spoke,  as  opposed  to 
the  corrupt  jargon  that  the  British  government  scribbled, 
Webster's  dictionaries  are  of  the  very  greatest  importance; 
and  in  all  seriousness  and  sincerity  I  declare  it  to  be  my 
firm  beUef  that  there  is  always  the  greatest  need  for  police 
court  justices  who  are  gentlemen  as  well  as  officers,  and 
who  think  in  the  words  of  the  English  people,  in  order 
that  they  may  do  their  part  towards  correcting  the  awful 
mistakes  of  the  incumbents  of  the  upper  benches  who  are 
officers  without  being  gentlemen  and  who  follow  in  their 
mental  processes  the  jargon  of  the  British  cabinet." 

Here  in  a  single  paragraph,  and  indeed,  in  a  single  sen- 
tence, are  at  least  four  separate  ideas  absolutely  dissimilar. 
The  result  is  that  it  conveys  no  clear  impression  to  the 
mind.  The  paragraph,  in  short,  like  the  whole  composi- 
tion, should  contain  but  one  single  central  idea.  A  group 
of  very  closely  related  ideas,  however,  may  be  included  in 
one  paragraph  centering  about  a  general  thought.  Digres- 
sions in  a  paragraph  from  the  central  idea  should  be  just  as 
carefully  avoided  as  in  the  whole  composition. 

While  the  principle  of  unity  is  essentially  the  same  in  the 
sentence  as  it  is  in  the  paragraph,  it  is  secured  differently. 
The  brief  or  outline  is  of  Httle  use  here  because  often,  even 
generally,  it  gives  merely  the  central  idea  and  not  the 


CLEARNESS  147 

steps  in  the  development  of  the  idea.  If,  however,  this 
central  idea  is  placed  at  the  beginning  of  the  paragraph  as  a 
topic  sentence,  and  if  care  is  taken  that  the  remainder  of 
the  paragraph  is  composed  of  sentences  each  of  which 
develops  the  topic  sentence,  and  nothing  but  the  topic 
sentence,  then  of  necessity  the  whole  paragraph  will  be 
unified;  it  will  contain  but  one  general  thought,  that  ex- 
pressed at  the  beginning.  If,  moreover,  the  final  sentence 
is  in  the  nature  of  a  summary  of  the  development  of 
the  topic,  one  can  be  doubly  sure  that  the  paragraph  is 
unified. 

The  principle  of  mass,  or  emphasis,  demands  that  in 
the  paragraph  ideas  should  be  given  space  and  position 

in  proportion  to  importance.    The  topic  sen- 

.         jVld.ss  of  tns 
tence  is  here  too  the  best  method  of  securing    paragraph 

this.  The  beginning  and  end  are  the  parts  of 
the  paragraph  which  stand  out.  Those  are  the  parts  one 
notices  just  as  one  notices  the  opening  and  closing  of  a 
book,  the  one  part  to  see  what  the  book  is  about  and  the 
other  to  see  how  it  comes  out.  The  first  and  last  sentences 
may  contain  the  one  dominating  idea  of  the  paragraph. 
The  first  sentence  should  be  clear  and  brief;  it  is  well  to 
have  it  give  a  preliminary  statement  of  the  central  thought. 
The  body  of  the  paragraph  should  contain  the  details  by 
means  of  which  the  idea  is  worked  out.  The  last  sentence 
should  Slim  it  up  concisely.  Note  the  mass  in  the  follow- 
ing short  paragraph  from  a  sermon,  "Resurrection,"  by 
Rev.  Frederick  W.  Robertson. 

"Six  thousand  years  of  human  existence  have  passed 
away — countless  armies  of  the  dead  have  set  sail  from  the 
shores  of  time.  No  traveller  has  returned  from  the  still 
land  beyond.    More  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  genera- 


148  FORM 

tions  have  done  their  work,  and  sunk  into  the  dust  again, 
and  still  there  is  not  a  voice,  there  is  not  a  whisper,  from 
the  grave,  to  tell  us  whether,  indeed,  those  myriads  are  in 
existence  still." 

The  initial  thought,  the  lapse  of  time,  is  here  put  in  a 
prominent  place,  that  is,  at  the  beginning,  in  a  single  sen- 
tence. The  vital  part  of  the  paragraph  is  at  the  end,  which 
is  another  prominent  place.  What  comes  between  ad- 
mirably develops  the  thought  but  is  not  of  as  much  rela- 
tive importance.  The  principle  of  mass  requires  in  short 
that  in  paragraphs,  also,  the  chief  thoughts  should  be  in 
the  most  conspicuous  places. 

The  principle  of  coherence  demands  that  the  separate 
parts  of  the  paragraph  shall  cling  together.  Connectives 
Coherence  ^^^^  relative  pronouns  or  adjectives  like 
of  the  para-  "such,"  "some,"  "another,"  "these,"  should 
graph  i^g  used.    This  will  secure  coherence  in  form. 

Coherence  in  substance  is  attained  by  having  the  thoughts 
follow  each  other  logically.  The  change  from  sentence  to 
sentence  should  not  be  marked  by  any  abrupt  change  of 
thought.  If  the  student  has  the  habit  of  using  the  topic 
sentence,  his  task  is  greatly  simplified.  Starting  from  a 
topic  sentence  one  naturally  secures  coherence  in  devel- 
oping the  paragraph  from  it.  In  narration,  as  oftentimes 
in  the  introduction,  the  natural  order  is  chronological — 
time  sequence,  as  it  is  called.  In  description,  the  order  is 
place  sequence ;  with  a  uniform  point  of  view  one  naturally 
describes  one  part  of  a  thing  or  place  and  then  another  part 
as  each  naturally  occurs  to  him  after  the  general  statement 
or  starting  point  laid  down  in  the  topic  sentence.  In 
argument,  the  development  from  the  topic  sentence  may 
be  from  a  general  statement  to  particulars,  or  to  examples 


CLEARNESS  149 

or  illustrations;  from  cause  to  effect,  or  effect  to  cause, 
and  so  on.  If  any  logical  order  of  ideas  is  followed,  the 
sentences  will  cohere  in  sense.  The  principle  of  coherence 
in  paragraphs  demands  merely  that  the  sentences  be  firmly 
cemented  together  and  that  the  ideas  naturally  cling 
together. 

In  considering  the  application  of  unity,  mass,  and  co- 
herence to  the  sentence  the  matter  is  not  so  simple.    We 
are  confronted  by  the  conflict  of  good  usage,  conflict  of 
of  the  rules  of  grammar,  with  the  require-  good  use 
ments  of  the  principles  of  composition.    We  ^^^^^  ^^  PJ^^^ 
are  not  allowed  the  privilege  of  juggling  the  when  applied 
parts  of  our  sentences  in  any  way  that  may  J°  *^^  ^®°" 
please  us.    We  are  limited  by  the  require- 
ments of  good  use — that  is,  the  practice  of  reputable 
writers  and  speakers  of  national  reputation  at  the  present 
time.    Subject,  however,  to  the  restrictions  of  good  use 
we  may  apply  the  principles  of  unity,  mass,  and  coherence 
to  sentences  just  as  to  the  other  elements. 

The  principle  of  unity  requires  that  each  sentence  should 

contain  a  single  idea.    The  sentence  which  does  not  fulfil 

this  requirement  may  contain  more  than 

1        ^u  1  ^     -^        Unity  of  the 

one  idea,  or  less  than  one  complete  idea,  sentence 

The  commonest  example  of  the  former  is 
the  had  loose  sentence.  A  loose  sentence  is  one  which  is 
grammatically  complete  before  its  end.  It  usually  has 
one  or  more  clauses  after  the  verb.  A  bad  loose  sentence 
is  one  in  which  the  loose  clauses  add  separate  ideas  to 
the  one  contained  in  the  subject  and  the  verb.  An  ex- 
ample is  this:  "The  boys  cheered  heartily  the  speaker 
who  came  from  Colon,  a  town  at  the  end  of  the  Panama 
Canal,   which  is   the  greatest  achievement  of  modern 


150  FORM 

engineering."  It  is  very  plain  that  the  descriptive  idea 
\^'ith  which  the  sentence  is  ended  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  main  idea  in  the  sentence.  It  should  be  omitted  en- 
tirely. While  it  is  important,  however,  that  no  sentence 
should  contain  two  or  more  ideas,  it  is  just  as  important 
that  each  should  be  complete.  The  common  type  of  in- 
complete sentence  is  the  co-ordinate  or  subordinate  clause 
used  as  a  complete  statement.  Nearly  every  short  sen- 
tence beginning  with  and  and  hut  is  really  a  co-ordinate 
clause  of  the  sentence  immediately  preceding.  Consider 
the  following:  "The  princess  proceeded  to  the  ball.  But 
the  king  hurried  back  to  his  palace  to  confer  with  the 
prime  minister."  It  is  plain  that  there  is  only  one  general 
idea,  the  action  of  royalty  when  war  was  declared:  the 
period  after  "ball"  should  therefore  be  changed  to  a 
comma.  Subordinate  as  well  as  co-ordinate  clauses  are 
frequently  detached  and  made  complete  sentences  in 
the  same  way.  Examples  of  this  are:  "He  said  that  he 
had  not  seen  my  book.  Which  was  a  plain  violation  of 
the  truth."  "  It  was  not  hard  for  me  to  finish  the  examina- 
tion. While  many  I  know  hardly  began  it."  The  second 
sentence  in  each  of  the  above  examples  is  not  complete. 
Each  of  these  sentences  is  really  a  part  of  the  one  which 
precedes  it,  because  both  are  needed  to  complete  a 
single  idea.  If  the  sentence  is  composed  of  an  incomplete 
statement,  or  of  two  incomplete  statements  crowded 
together,  the  unit  of  expression  does  not  give  a  unit  of 
thought.  To  avoid  this  confusion,  the  principle  of  unity 
as  apphed  to  sentences  requires  that  each  group  of  words 
representing  a  sentence  should  contain  one  idea,  neither 
more  nor  less. 
The  principle  of  coherence  in  the  sentence  makes  clear 


CLEARNESS  151 

what  is  the  relation  of  the  various  parts.    A  newspaper 

contained  this  item:  "The  infuriated  lover   shot  three 

times  at  the  young  lady,  one  taking  effect 

,  ,  ,        .      ^,  1   Coherence  of 

in  the  neck  and  another  m  the  arm  and  ^.j^g  sentence 

a  third  in  the  piano."  The  absurd  result 
obtained  here  is  due  to  lack  of  coherence.  A  very  com- 
mon mistake  of  coherence  is  to  be  found  in  the  use  of  the 
adverb  "only."  "Please  write  only  on  one  side  of  the 
page."  The  adverb  here  modifies  "write,"  not  "one." 
To  remedy  this  fault  of  position,  the  relation  should  be 
made  clear  by  placing  the  dependent  word  or  phrase  so 
that  it  can  refer  to  nothing  else.  A  second  difficulty  of 
coherence  in  the  sentence  lies  in  the  use  of  dissimilar  forms 
of  construction  for  similarly  related  ideas.  Consider  the 
sentence  "When  the  umpire  had  taken  his  position,  the 
pitcher  having  received  the  brand  new  ball,  and  the 
catcher  being  behind  the  plate,  the  game  began."  Here 
there  are  three  clauses  all  similar  in  their  relation,  yet 
each  is  in  a  different  construction.  The  sentence  might 
read:  "When  the  umpire  and  catcher  had  taken  their 
positions,  and  the  pitcher  had  received  the  brand  new 
ball,  the  game  began."  Another  very  common  mistake 
in  coherence  is  the  combination  of  active  and  passive 
verbs  in  parallel  clauses  of  the  same  sentence.  "The 
FiUpinos  decided  to  complain  to  the  Governor  General, 
and  they  were  met  with  the  greatest  courtesy."  The 
purpose  of  writing  and  speaking  is  to  express  our  thoughts. 
If  the  thoughts  are  similar,  the  expression  of  them  to  be 
most  efficient  should  be  similar.  Parallel  ideas  should 
be  stated  in  parallel  constructions.  To  make  our  style 
coherent,  we  must  make  the  relation  of  the  various  parts 
of  the  sentence  so  clear  that  no  mistake  can  be  made. 


152  FORM 

The  principle  of  mass  makes  clear  what  is  the  relative 

importance  of  each  part  of  the  sentence.    The  writer  must 

first  select  the  most  important  words  and 

TV/r  Q  cc   OT   ^\\  f^  •  •    •  • 

sentence  ^^^^  ^^  must  assign  to  them  positions  which 

will  make  their  importance  felt.  The  be- 
ginning and  the  end  of  sentences  are  always  the  emphatic 
parts.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  important  words  should 
occupy  these  places.  For  this  reason  the  loose  sentence 
should  in  general  be  avoided,  for  it  places  at  the  end  of 
the  sentence  an  unemphatic  clause.  On  the  contrary, 
periodic  sentences  will  often  secure  the  proper  emphasis; 
in  the  periodic  sentence  the  sense  and  the  attention  are 
sustained  to  the  end.  Consider  this  sentence:  "It  is  an 
evident  fact  that  life  is  worth  Uving  for  the  scavenger  who 
sweeps  our  streets,  and  for  the  doctor  who  cures  our  ills, 
and  for  the  maid  who  serves  our  coffee."  This  sentence 
lacks  mass;  the  weakest  parts  are  given  the  strongest 
places.  It  starts  with  a  weak  clause.  It  closes  with  an 
anti-climax.  The  sentence  would  have  proper  mass, — 
the  various  parts  would  be  given  a  position  in  proportion 
to  the  importance  of  them, — if  it  were  arranged  as  follows: 
"The  maid  who  serves  our  coffee,  the  scavenger  who 
sweeps  our  streets,  the  doctor  who  cures  our  ills, — all  lead 
a  life  clearly  worth  Hving."  This  order  of  chmax  does 
place  important  words  in  the  important  positions.  For 
this  reason  the  periodic  sentence  is  theoretically  desirable. 
Theoretically,  we  say,  because  if  all  of  our  sentences  were 
periodic  we  would  violate  the  principles  of  good  usage  in 
the  EngUsh  language.  There  is  no  writer  whose  sentences 
are  entirely  periodic  or  entirely  loose.  If,  however,  we 
make  our  sentences  periodic  wherever  it  is  possible  with- 
out their  becoming  artificial,  they  will  fulfil  that  require- 


CLEARNESS  153 

merit  of  clearness  called  mass, — the  ideas  will  be  placed 
with  reference  to  their  importance. 

To  recapitulate,  sentences,  paragraphs,  and  whole 
compositions  should  be  constructed  according  to  the 
principles  of  unity,  coherence,  and  mass,  g 
Each  element  of  composition  should  contain 
one  thought;  the  relation  of  one  part  to  another  should 
be  unmistakable;  each  part  should  be  assigned  a  position 
according  to  its  importance.  In  the  whole  composition 
the  brief  is  the  most  useful  servant  in  securing  these 
principles;  in  the  paragraph  and  in  the  sentence  we  have 
to  rely  upon  our  own  judgment  in  applying  a  few  general 
rules.  Our  problem  is  simply  to  make  others  see  an  idea 
as  clearly  as  we  do :  the  principle  of  unity  teaches  us  how 
to  select  our  materials;  the  principle  of  coherence  tells  us 
how  to  arrange  or  cement  them  together;  the  principle 
of  mass  or  emphasis  shows  us  how  to  assign  to  them  space 
and  position  according  to  their  importance.  The  result 
is  clearness. 


CHAPTER  XI 
FORCE 

A  CUBIST  painting  has  been  compared  to  the  scratching 
of  a  chicken  on  a  palette  of  brilliant  water  colors.  The 
result  is  vivid,  but  it  gives  no  definite  impression;  it  lacks 
clearness.  Our  writing  is  Kkely  to  have  the  opposite 
fault;  if  we  constructed  a  brief,  and  if  we  followed  the 
principles  of  unity,  coherence,  and  mass  ui  writing  the 
argument,  the  result  is  clear  enough,  but  in  many  cases 
it  is  colorless,  or  the  colors  are  dull  and  lifeless.  The 
cubist  picture  attracts  the  attention,  but  it  gives  us  no 
definite  impression;  our  arguments  often  give  a  clear 
enough  impression,  but  they  do  not  attract  the  attention. 
How  can  we  then  make  our  style  not  only  clear  but  also 
forcible? 

Force  is  that  quality  of  style  which  attracts  or  holds 
the  attention.  Attention  itself  is  an  elusive  thing;  it  is 
Force  as  a  *^®  positive  element  of  the  great  psycho- 
quality  of  logical  mystery,  consciousness.  It  is,  in 
^^^®  short,  active  consciousness;  it  is  that  part 

of  consciousness  which  is  mentally  active  enough  to  receive 
definite  impression.  Locke,  in  his  Essay  on  Human  Un- 
derstanding says: 

"There  are  ideas,  some  or  other,  always  present  in  the  mind 
of  waking  man;  though  the  mind  employs  itself  about  them 
with  several  degrees  of  attention.  Sometimes  the  mind  fixes 
itself  with  such  intention  .  .  .  that  it  shuts  out  all  other  thoughts 

154 


FORCE  155 

and  takes  no  notice  of  the  ordinary  impressions  made  on  the 
senses;  ...  at  other  times  it  barely  observes  the  train  of 
ideas  .  .  ,  without  directing  and  pursuing  any  of  them,  and  at 
other  times  it  lets  them  pass  almost  quite  unregarded  as  faint 
shadows  that  make  no  impression." 

Our  problem  in  writing  an  argument  is  to  make  the 
mind  fix  itself  "with  such  intention  .  .  .  that  it  shuts 
out  all  other  thoughts."    We  want  the  at- 
tention of  our  hearers  that  they  may  receive    attention 
the  impressions  we  wish  to  give  them.    We 
must  arouse  their  consciousness  to  a  state  of  mental  ac- 
tivity.   It  is  purely  a  psychological  problem,  and  psychol- 
ogy gives  us  the  answer.     Professor  James  Ward  says: 
"In  sensations  we  can  distinguish  three  variations,  viz., 
variations  of  quaHty,  of  intensity,  and  of  .  .  .  extensity." 

While  Professor  Ward  has  no  reference  to  style,  his 
words  suggest  to  us  methods  by  which  we  may  secure 
force:  extensity  is  to  be  attained  by  repe- 
tition;  intensity  by   conciseness;   and    the    curing  force 
quality  of  vividness  by  concreteness. 

It  is  related  that  in  the  days  of  Captain  Kidd  it  was  a 
favorite  method  of  torture  to  chain  the  victim  securely 
and  to  let  fall  from  a  porous  vessel  drops  of  _ 
cold  water  each  striking  in  the  same  spot 
on  the  head.  At  first  the  gentle  dripping  is  not  noticed; 
soon  the  drops  are  felt  but  the  sensation  is  not  disagree- 
able; finally  the  monotonous  blows  seem  to  fall  harder, 
harder,  harder,  until  the  victim  faints  or  raves.  It  is 
by  such  a  mechanical  device  as  this,  constant  repeti- 
tion, whether  it  be  of  drops  of  water  or  of  words, 
that  an  impression  is  made.  Sometimes  we  repeat  one 
word    only.      In   a    well-worn   emotional    declamation, 


156  FORM 

"The  Deathbed  of  Benedict  Arnold,"  *  the  forcible 
word  is  the  throb  of  the  death  watch.  "Throb!"  the 
youthful  orator  declaims.  "Throb!  Throb!"  he  intensi- 
fies. "Throb!  Throb!  Throb!"  he  finally  sobs,  and  the 
hero  dies.  Artificial  and  mechanical,  beyond  a  doubt, 
this  piece  is,  yet  the  very  popularity  of  it  proves  its  for- 
cibleness. 

Burke  gives  us  many  an  admirable  example  of  force  by 
repetition.    At  one  time  he  says : 

"The  proposition  is  peace.  Not  peace  through  the  medium  of 
war;  not  peace  to  be  hunted  through  the  labyrinth  of  intricate 
and  endless  negotiations;  not  peace  to  arise  out  of  imiversal 
discord,  fomented,  from  principle,  in  all  parts  of  the  empire; 
not  peace  to  depend  on  the  juridical  determination  of  perplex- 
ing shadowy  boundaries  of  a  complex  government.  It  is  simple 
peace,  sought  in  its  natural  course  and  in  its  ordinary  haunts. 
It  is  peace  sought  in  the  spirit  of  peace,  and  laid  in  principles 
purely  pacific.  I  propose,  by  removing  the  ground  of  differ- 
ence, .  .  .  to  give  permanent  satisfaction  to  your  people ;  .  .  ." 

A  less  mechanical  method  of  repetition  is  not  in  repeat- 
ing words  but  in  repeating  whole  ideas  by  a  neat  turn  of 
phrasing,  by  a  summary,  by  an  illustration,  a  metaphor, 
or  a  simile.  Notice  how  forcibly  Patrick  Henry  expresses 
the  idea  that  the  colonies  must  act  now  or  never: 

"They  tell  us,  sir,  that  we  are  weak — imable  to  cope  with 
so  formidable  an  adversary.  But  when  shall  we  be  stronger? 
Will  it  be  next  week,  or  the  next  year?  Will  it  be  when  we  are 
totally  disarmed,  and  when  a  British  guard  shall  be  stationed  in 
every  house?  Shall  we  gather  strength  by  irresolution  and 
inaction?  Shall  we  acquire  the  means  of  effectual  resistance  by 
lying  supinely  on  our  backs  and  hugging  the  delusive  phantom 
of  hope,  until  our  enemies  shall  have  bound  us  hand  and  foot?" 
1  By  George  Lippard. 


FORCE  157 

Daniel  Webster  was  the  very  master  of  force  through 
repetition: 

"True  it  is,  generally  speaking,  that  murder  will  out!  .  .  . 
Meantime,  the  guilty  soul  cannot  keep  its  own  secret.  It  is  false 
to  itself;  rather  it  feels  an  irresistible  impulse  to  conscience 
to  be  true  to  itself.  It  labors  under  its  guilty  possession  and 
knows  not  what  to  do  with  it.  The  human  heart  was  not  made 
for  the  residence  of  such  an  inhabitant.  It  finds  itself  preyed 
on  by  a  torment  which  it  dares  not  acknowledge  to  God  nor 
man.  A  vulture  is  devouring  it,  it  can  ask  no  sympathy  or  as- 
sistance either  from  heaven  or  earth.  The  secret  which  the  mur- 
derer possesses  soon  comes  to  possess  him;  and  like  the  evil 
spirits  of  which  we  read,  it  overcomes  him  and  leads  him  whither- 
soever it  will.  He  feels  it  beating  at  his  heart,  rising  to  his  throat, 
and  demanding  disclosure.  He  thinks  the  whole  world  sees  it 
in  his  face,  reads  it  in  his  eyes,  and  almost  hears  it  working  in 
the  very  silence  of  his  thoughts.  It  has  become  his  master.  It 
betrays  his  discretion,  it  breaks  down  his  courage,  and  it  con- 
quers his  prudence.  When  suspicions,  from  without,  begin  to 
embarrass  him,  and  the  net  of  circumstance  to  entangle  him,  the 
fatal  secret  struggles  with  still  greater  violence  to  burst  forth. 
It  must  be  confessed;  it  will  be  confessed;  there  is  no  refuge  from 
confession  but  suicide,  and  suicide  is  confession," 

The  effectiveness  of  repetition  is  apparent  enough;  it  is 
the  constant  drive,  drive,  drive,  that  finally  penetrates 
to  the  inner  consciousness.  We  tell  our  Nature  of 
classes  that  the  fundamental  thing  about  forcefulness 
argument  is  the  analysis  into  the  main 
issues;  we  italicize  the  words  ^'the  main  issues"  in  the  rules 
for  briefing;  we  criticize  in  the  forensics  the  fact  that  the 
main  issues  do  or  do  not  stand  out;  and  at  the  end  of  the 
year  we  tell  the  class  that  if  ten  years  hence  they  remem- 
ber the  need  of  main  issues  in  everything  they  write  and 


158  FORM 

apply  this  principle,  the  study  of  argument  will  have  been 
the  most  valuable  part  of  their  college  course.  The  result, 
it  is  easily  appreciated,  is  that  main  issues  are  so  firmly 
impressed  upon  the  minds  of  the  students  that  to  state 
the  main  issues  in  anything  they  write  becomes  nearly 
an  instinct. 

There  is  of  course  some  danger  in  this  constant  repeti- 
tion of  words  and  ideas.  We  are  told  in  the  rhetorics  that 
A  rhetorical  ^^  ^^  ^  ^^^^^  ^^  repeat  oneself.  There  are, 
objection  to  indeed,  certain  purists  and  worshippers  of 
repetition  authority  who  prefer  a  kind  of  "school- 
marm"  or  emasculated  style  in  which  the  same  word  never 
occurs  twice  in  the  same  paragraph.  It  is  undoubtedly 
true  that  repetition  which  is  the  result  of  carelessness  or 
of  an  insufficient  vocabulary  shows  the  unpolished  and 
inartistic  writer.  Repetition  to  secure  force,  however,  is 
a  desirable  and  virile  characteristic  well  worth  careful 
cultivation. 

There  is  another  danger  of  repetition  which  is  more 

fundamental  and  more  dangerous.    It  Ues  in  the  fact  that 

„       ,.,.  too  constant  or  too  mechanical  repetition 

Repetition 

must  be  will  be  monotonous  and  not  forcible.     We 

used  with  must  know  when  to  stop.  The  man  who 
moderation        ,  ^,  ,    ,, 

always  uses  the  same  swear  word,  the  man 

who  always  tells  the  same  story,  the  man  who  always  talks 

prohibition,  the  man  who  constantly  pounds  the  air  in 

speaking — these  men  do  not  secure  force,  but  they  do 

become  pests.     In  repetition,  as  elsewhere,  the  law  is 

moderation. 

The  monotony  of  repetition  can  be  avoided  by  securing 

a  second  great  principle  of  force — conciseness.    The  terms 

conciseness  and  repetition  seem  at  first  thought  para- 


FORCE  159 

doxical;  but  concise  repetition  is  not  a  self-contradictory 

phrase.    Repetition  may  be  diffuse  or  it  may  be  concise. 

George  Eliot  speaks  of  the  terse  repeating    Conciseness 

of  an  idea  which  we  wish  to  make  forcible    as  a  princi- 

as  the  "curt  hammering  way  with  which    ^ 

we  usually  try  to  nail  down  a  vague  mind  to  imperative 

facts." 

Conciseness  may  be  defined  as  brevity  plus  compre- 
hensiveness; it  is  saying  much  in  little,  as  opposed  to 

verbosity,  saying  little  at  great  length.    Con- 

.    ,        -J.      1    i  -i.  •    u       -i.  J     Definition  of 

ciseness  is  brevity,  but  it  is  brevity  secured    conciseness 

by   compactness,   not  by   omission;   to  be 

concise  one  must  condense  and  not  merely  cut  down. 

The  need  of  conciseness  in  securing  force  is  apparent 

enough.    The  verbose  style  is  not  forcible:  we  tire  of  the 

man  who  wanders  on  and  on,   who  never    «-««j  ^* 

JMeed  of  con- 
seems  to  know  when  to  stop.     A  story  is    ciseness    to 

told  of  a  noted  speaker's  first  public  address.    ^^^^^ 

monotony 
His  subject  was  good,  and  he  hoped  his 

treatment  had  been  adequate.  He  was  not  sure.  His 
wife  had  listened  to  him  from  the  gallery  of  the  town  hall, 
and  he  had  half-expected  her  to  meet  him  at  the  door 
afterward,  and  to  say,  as  soon  as  they  were  out  of  hearing 
of  others,  "  Oh,  it  was  simply  great."  But  they  were  half- 
way home,  and  she  had  said  nothing  of  the  kind. 

"Well,"  he  began,  awkwardly,  when  he  could  bear  it 
no  longer,  "what  did  you  think  of  my  speech?" 

"What  you  said  was  all  right,"  she  answered,  with 
guarded  enthusiasm,  "but  it  seemed  to  me  that  you  didn't 
make  the  most  of  your  opportunities." 

"Opportunities?"  repeated  Mr.  S — ,  "What  do  you 
mean?  " 


160  FORM 

"Why,"  Mrs.  fe' —  replied,  "you  had  ever  so  many 
chances  to  sit  down  before  you  did." 

It  is  a  platitude  of  public  speaking  instructors  that  the 
proper  way  to  make  a  speech  is  to  say  your  say  and  sit 
down.  We  have  many  times,  especially  during  long  com- 
mencement orations  by  men  who  ought  to  know  better, 
sjTupathized  Tvith  the  small  tot  in  the  Sunday  School 
class.    A  visitor  was  asked  to  address  the  children. 

"I  hardly  know  what  to  say,"  he  began. 

"Thay  amen,  and  thit  down,"  was  the  helpful  sugges- 
tion from  the  front  row. 

Conciseness  is  valuable  not  only  to  avoid  alienating  the 

attention  but  also  to  arouse  it  to  increased  activity.    The 

,  intensive  reaction  of  the  terse,  pointed  say- 

Value  of  con-  .    -      ^ 

ciseness    to    ing  acts  as  a  shock  to  the  mind.     To  enu- 

arouse  the  merate  and  describe  the  courses  given  in  a 
large  university  in  the  large  and  small  college 
argument  would  be  deadly  monotonous;  but  it  is  another 
matter  to  say:  " For  one  man  to  take  all  the  courses  offered 
by  Harvard  University  would  require  110  years."  The 
proverb  and  the  epigram  are  such  pointed  forms  of  state- 
ment that  prick  the  attention  by  conciseness. 

The  appeal  of  the  concise  to  the  attention  is  in  the  in- 
tensity of  the  stimulus.  In  a  foundry  we  can  bear  with- 
out great  discomfort  the  refracted  heat  from  a  white  hot 
mass;  but  if  a  small  part  of  this  heat  were  concentrated 
on  any  part  of  our  body  by  an  oxy-hydrogen  blow-pipe, 
we  should  be  cremated,  at  least  in  part.  It  is  the  concen- 
tration, the  condensation,  that  makes  the  stimulus  intense 
enough  to  leave  its  impression.  A  sermon  of  half  an  hour 
on  the  evils  of  intoxication  may  be  forgotten  during  its 
dehvery;  a  sharp,  pointed  epigram,  "No  man  can  serve 


FORCE  161 

two  masters,  especially  if  one  be  John  Barleycorn,"  may 
stick  in  the  memory  for  years.  What  brevity  is  to  wit, 
conciseness  is  to  argument. 

"In  laboring  to  be  concise,"  Horace  tells  us,  "I  become 
obscure."    Just  as  we  found  that  in  trying  to  secure  force 
by  repetition  we  tended  to  over-leap  our- 
selves and  attain  monotony,  now  we  find  Concreteness 
.  r  11  •         ^^  ^  princi- 

that  m  striving  for  conciseness  we  fall  into  pie  of  force 

abstract   terms   lacking   in   vividness,    and 

therefore  in  interest.     What  force  we  gain  in  form,  we 

more  than  lose  in  substance.    "  Discretion  is  the  better 

part  of  valor,"  is  concise  enough,  but  its  abstractness  tends 

to   diminish  its  forcefulness.     "Adam's  meat   may  be 

Eve's  poison"  is  concise,  but  it  is  also  concrete,  and  it  is 

certainly  more  striking  than  the  other  epigram.     Our 

problem,  therefore,  is  not  only  to  be  forceful  in  form  by 

means  of  repetition  and  conciseness,  but  also  to  be  forceful 

in  substance  by  means  of  concreteness. 

Concreteness  consists  in  deahng  with  the  specific  rather 

than  the  general;  it  is  the  opposite  of  abstractness.    The 

use  of  the  concrete  may  take  the  form  of 

1  p  •Hi     ,•  iTTi        Concreteness 

an  example  or  oi   an  illustration.      When  defined 

we  give  an  example  we  select  one  case  and 
hold  it  up  to  show  the  character  or  quahty  of  all.  An  illus- 
tration as  used  here  to  differentiate  from  an  example  con- 
sists in  presenting  not  a  sample  of  the  whole  but  another 
thing  with  which  a  comparison  is  made.  To  say  that 
Mill  spent  years  of  his  life  in  the  construction  of  a 
system  of  logic  is  an  example  of  the  general  statement 
that  philosophers  deal  with  the  unmaterial.  To  say 
that  a  philosopher  is  like  a  child  reaching  for  the  stars 
is  an  illustration,  a  verbal  picture,  taken  from  external 


162  FORM 

affairs  to  "light  up"  the  meaning  of  the  general  state- 
ment. 

"The  mind  of  man  is  peopled,"  it  has  been  said,  "like 
some  silent  city,  with  a  sleeping  company  of  reminiscences, 

associations,  impressions,  attitudes,  emo- 
"^^nore^e^  *^^  tions,  to  be  awakened  into  fierce  activity 

at  the  touch  of  words."  The  concrete  is 
more  forcible  because  it  is  more  effective  than  the  abstract 
in  awakening  this  silent  city.  Our  perceptions  consist 
in  the  assimilation  of  the  new  thing  to  the  old,  in  the 
meeting  of  each  novel  idea,  "as  it  comes  in,  see  through 
it  unwontedness,  and  ticket  it  off  as  an  old  friend  in  dis- 
guise." ^  James  mentions  the  child  who  called  whole 
eggs,  "potatoes,"  and  a  folding  pocket-corkscrew,  "bad- 
scissors."  Another  child  called  a  vase  of  ferns,  a  pot  of 
green  feathers.  The  Polynesians  are  said  to  have  called 
Captain  Cook's  horses,  pigs. 

The  Fuegians   whom   Darwin   encountered   expressed 
great  wonder  at  the  small  boats,  but,  strange  to  say,  they 

took  no  notice  of  the  big  ship.  Here  we 
^^*eaf  °^  ^^^^  ^^  explanation  of  the  fact  that  the  con- 
•  Crete  appeals  to  the  mind  more  forcibly  than 
the  abstract.  The  interest  or  wonder  is  not  aroused  con- 
cerning things  which  are  so  large,  or  so  indefinite,  that  we 
have  no  experience  to  which  they  can  be  referred  or  stand- 
ards by  which  they  can  be  measured.  The  definite  verbal 
picture,  in  short,  has  much  greater  power  to  awaken  the 
sleeping  city  of  associations  than  have  abstractions. 
Cartoons  and  drawings  in  the  comic  papers  attract  our 
attention  more  forcibly  than  do  the  printed  jokes;  they 
call  to  mind  more  vividly  actual  sensations.  We  associate 
^  James,  Briefer  Course  in  Psychology,  p.  328. 


FORCE  163 

the  visualized  experiences  of  the  characters  with  our  own 
experiences  and  our  own  feeUngs  much  more  vividly  than 
we  do  a  verbal  description  of  the  same  events.  The  story 
of  a  clerk  who  gave  up  a  bank  position  with  a  salary  of 
$1,500,  accepted  a  job  with  wages  of  $50  a  month  as  locker- 
boy  in  a  golf  club,  and  there  earned  $3,000  a  year  by 
handUng  the  pressing  and  laundry  of  the  members, — 
this  story  makes  a  much  more  forcible  impression  than 
a  sermon  of  generaUties  and  platitudes  concerning  the 
folly  of  false  pride. 

The  value  of  using  concrete  examples  and  illustrations, 
or  awakening  the  silent  city  of  associations,  is  strikingly 

seen  from    an  analysis   of   the  nature   of  . 

^     .  •  ^1  J     Genius  and 

gemus.     Geniuses  are  mcorrectly  supposed    attention 

to  excel  other  men  in  their  power  of  sus- 
tained attention.  The  superiority  of  genius  is  of  an  en- 
tirely different  nature.  "The  minds  of  geniuses  are  full  of 
copious  and  original  associations.  The  subject  of  thought, 
once  started,  develops  all  sorts  of  fascinating  consequences. 
The  attention  is  led  along  one  or  the  other  of  these  in  the 
most  interesting  manner,  and  the  attention  never  once 
tends  to  stray  away."  The  superiority  of  genius  lies, 
therefore,  not  in  its  power  of  sustained  attention  on  un- 
interesting subjects,  but  in  the  richness  of  its  associations 
which  tend  to  make  all  subjects  interesting.  In  writing 
an  argument  we  cannot  make  geniuses  of  our  readers  by 
adding  to  the  silent  city  of  associations  in  their  minds  and 
thus  make  it  possible  to  keep  the  attention  even  to  unin- 
teresting abstractions;  we  must,  therefore,  try  to  awaken 
the  silent  city  that  exists  by  using  the  most  vivid  and 
connotative  examples  and  illustrations. 
Force,  to  sum  up,  is  that  quality  of  style  which  gets 


164  FORM 

and  holds  the  attention.     We  demand  attention  by  em- 
phasizing our  points  through  constant  repetition.      We 

furnish  fertile  soil,  a  favorable  environment 
Summary 

for  the  flourishing  of  attention,  by  making 

our  style  concise,  so  that  the  interest  may  not  wither  away 

from  drear  monotony.    Spontaneous  attention  we  get  by 

taking  advantage  of  the  twofold  tendency  of  the  human 

mind  to  associate  concrete  events  and  things  with  all  our 

past  experiences,  and  to  be  interested  in  the  discovery  of 

the  kinship  of  new  acquaintances  in  the  shape  of  ideas, 

things,  and  events  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  silent  city 

of  our  minds.    Repetition,  conciseness,  and  concreteness, 

in  short,  are  the  essentials  of  force. 


CHAPTER  XII 
BEAUTY 

Emerson  says  that  the  presence  of  a  higher,  namely, 
of  the  spiritual,  element  is  essential  to  perfection.  If  for 
the  purposes  of  argument  we  consider  the 
word  "spiritual"  to  mean  aesthetic,  or  that  ^j^g  quality 
which  is  pleasing  to  the  taste,  this  statement 
certainly  applies.  Of  the  three  qualities  of  style,  clearness, 
or  that  which  appeals  to  the  mental  side  of  man,  is  perhaps 
the  most  prominent  and  it  may  be  the  most  necessary. 
Force,  which  holds  the  attention  and  appeals  to  the  emo- 
tional nature,  is  undoubtedly  next,  but  after  all,  while 
an  argument  that  is  clear  and  forceful  can  be  effective, 
it  is  not  perfect  unless  it  pleases  its  hearers  and  appeals  to 
their  aesthetic  instincts.  Beauty  is  the  term  which  we 
apply  to  that  quality  of  style  which  makes  the  argument 
please  those  who  hear  it.  The  term  "beauty"  is  not 
exactly  satisfactory,  and  yet  it  is  perhaps  the  best  word 
we  can  use.  Sometimes  this  quahty  has  been  called  ele- 
gance, ease,  finish,  smoothness,  or  harmony,  but  none  of 
these  words  seems  to  describe  the  quahty  any  more  ac- 
curately than  the  term  we  have  chosen. 

Although  we  readily  appreciate  how  much  more  effective 

an  argument  can  be  if  it  is  written  in  a  pleasing  style,  we 

find  that  when  we  come  to  analyze  and  try  to  set  forth 

the  methods  of  obtaining  that  quality  of  style,  we  are  at 

once  beset  with  difficulties.    The  ways  of  attaining  clear- 

165 


166  FORM 

ness  approach  the  mathematical  in  their  precision,  and 
force  has  certain  elements  which  are  easily  discerned,  but 
beauty  is  an  indefinite  quality,  the  existence  of  which  we 
appreciate,  but  which  we  find  it  difficult  to  define.  Why 
is  it  that  one  speaker  satisfies  our  ears  more  than  another? 
No  one  at  this  time  would  claim  that  Henry  Grady  was  a 
greater  orator  than  Daniel  Webster,  and  yet,  admirable 
as  the  oratory  of  Webster  is,  it  is  doubtful  if  any  of  his 
speeches  will  compare  in  this  one  quality  with  such 
an  address  as  the  "New  South."  If,  then,  some  men 
seem  to  have  the  ability  of  phrasing  their  thought  in 
beautiful  words,  words  that  make  a  pleasurable  impres- 
sion upon  their  hearers,  how  can  we  attain  it? 

The  suggestion  comes  at  once  that  this  quality  is  some- 
thing that  cannot  be  taught.    It  is  the  perfection  of  the 

TiiT  X,-  J  £  orator's  art.  It  is,  indeed,  that  which  makes 
Method  of  ,      r  /^ 

acquiring         a  good  argument  a  work  of  art.     Orators, 

beauty  of         jjj^g  poets,  are  born,  not  made.    Neverthe- 
less, it  is  possible  to  make  some  suggestions 
which  will  aid  the  beginner  in  acquiring  this  most  elusive 
quaUty  of  style. 

Beauty  in  any  form  of  English  composition  can  be 
acquired  by  what  we  may  call  unconscious  imitation. 
If  the  student  will  read  copiously  and  carefully  and  with 
appreciation,  from  the  best  masters  of  style  he  will 
soon  find  that  unconsciously  he  is  developing  a  style 
of  his  own.  He  soon  begins  to  break  away  from  the 
primitive  English  which  had  its  first  expression  in  the 
sentences  of  the  primer,  and  uses  words  and  phrases  of 
greater  scope,  even  though  he  be  at  times  amazed  at  his 
own  audacity.  It  surely  must  have  been  the  unconscious 
influence  of  academic  surroundings  and  possibly  of  aca- 


BEAUTY  167 

demic  speech  which  made  a  professional  baseball  umpire 
exclaim  to  the  contestants  who  desired  to  have  a  college 
game  called  on  account  of  rain,  "Bide  a  while,  me  lads,  it 
may  cease."  It  must  be  confessed  that  sometimes  the 
endeavors  of  young  people  to  break  away  from  the  matter 
of  fact  language  of  their  early  days  produces  a  grotesque- 
ness  of  expression  which  rivals  that  of  our  friend,  the 
umpire.  If  they  persevere,  however,  sooner  or  later  they 
will  free  themselves  from  the  circumscribed  limits  of  their 
youthful  vocabularies,  and  speak  with  a  freedom  which 
will  give  pleasure  to  their  hearers  and  to  themselves. 

In  the  first  place,  therefore,  we  may  create  a  pleasurable 
style  in  ourselves  by  observing  and  appreciating  its  pres- 
ence in  others.  The  student  of  argument  need  not  confine 
himself  to  reading  from  the  works  of  the  masters  of  ora- 
tory. Every  artist,  whether  he  write  in  prose  or  poetry, 
has  something  to  contribute  if  we  will  only  seek  it  out. 
If  a  student  wishes  a  practical  and  psychological  test  of 
what  contact  with  masters  of  style  will  do,  let  him  spend 
a  short  time  reading  aloud  from  some  great  artist  whose 
works  particularly  appeal  to  him.  Suppose  that  he  select, 
for  example,  such  a  masterpiece  as  Grady's  "New  South," 
or  Burke's  "Impeachment  of  Warren  Hastings,"  or 
Webster's  "Reply  to  Hayne."  If  immediately  after  he 
has  finished  reading  any  such  selection,  he  begins  to  write, 
it  will  be  strange  indeed  if  he  does  not  see  in  his  composi- 
tion the  effect  of  the  words  which  have  just  been  upon  his 
tongue.  If  he  enlarge  the  scope  of  his  reading  and  read 
continually  the  words  of  these  people  who  have  known 
how  to  write,  the  same  influences  will  unconsciously  per- 
sist in  his  own  speech.  We  all  know  that  you  cannot  five 
long  among  people  without  imitating  their  forms  of  ex- 


168  FORM 

pression  and  even  the  particular  dialect  in  which  they 
speak  their  words.  So  you  cannot  live  long  in  the  com- 
pany of  the  great  writers  of  the  past  without  unconsciously 
drawing  from  them  inspiration  in  the  art  which  they 
have  known  so  well.  This,  then,  is  really  a  tangible  method 
of  acquiring  beauty  of  style. 

As  yet,  however,  while  we  have  seen  a  way  to  acquire 
beauty,  we  have  not  found  out  anything  with  regard  to 
what  it  really  is.  It  is  just  as  indefinite  as 
tics  of  beauty  ^^  ^^^  before.  Without  even  pretending 
that  we  can  analyze  this  indefinite  quality  to 
its  component  parts,  and  while  admitting  that  there  are 
many  other  manifestations  of  it,  at  least  four  of  its  prin- 
cipal characteristics  can  be  described  by  the  terms,  purity, 
melody,  imagination  and  wit.  Here  again  the  terms  are 
not  any  too  aptly  chosen,  but  they  are  at  least  sufficient 
to  suggest  what  we  have  in  mind.  A  good  style,  then, 
should  be  pure;  it  should  contain  nothing  which  is  offen- 
sive to  the  thought  of  our  hearers.  It  should  be  melodious; 
the  very  sounds  of  the  words  themselves  should  fall  pleas- 
ingly upon  our  ears.  It  should  betray  imagination  in  order 
that  our  hearers  may  be  lifted  above  the  commonplaces  of 
life.  Finally,  it  should  have  wit  in  order  that  the  serious- 
ness of  the  thought  may  perhaps  be  refieved  by  the  bright- 
ness of  the  vehicle  in  which  that  thought  is  conveyed. 

The  characteristic  of  purity  is  obtained  not  so  much  by 

what  we  put  into  our  speech  as  by  that  which  we  leave 

_    .,  out.     As  has  been  said  in  the  chapter  on 

Purity 

persuasion,  slang,  although  from  its  very 

vividness  at  times  a  temptation  to  the  writer,  neverthe- 
less in  the  long  run  is  sure  to  prove  a  fault  rather  than  a 
merit  in  his  work.     Colloquial  and  vulgar  expressions 


BEAUTY  169 

undoubtedly  will  attract  attention,  but  they  are  fatal  to 
sustained  interest  in  the  thought  itself.  It  goes  without 
saying  that  ungrammatical  constructions  obtrude  them- 
selves at  once  upon  the  notice  and  give  pleasure  to  no 
one.  There  seems  to  be  nothing  stranger  in  the  whole 
subject  of  human  speech  than  that  men  who  are  habitually 
ungrammatical  themselves  should  so  quickly  notice  the 
same  fault  in  others.  If  you  wish  to  portray  an  uneducated 
person  upon  the  stage,  you  make  him  double  his  negatives, 
put  aspirates  where  they  should  not  be,  and  commit  other 
solecisms.  The  audience,  whether  in  the  orchestra  or  in  the 
gallery,  will  laugh.  It  is  not  only  the  refined  and  educated 
who  smile  at  the  blunders  of  the  illiterate ;  illiterates  them- 
selves laugh  loudly  at  the  same  blunders  when  they  hear 
them  committed  by  other  people.  The  student  should 
also  avoid  the  technical  terms  of  this  subject  of  argument. 
"Affirmative,"  "negative,"  "burden  of  proof,"  "main 
issues,"  "history  of  the  question,"  and  the  like,  while 
proper  in  the  brief,  are  artificial  in  the  extreme  when  in- 
troduced into  the  finished  argument.  To  attain  purity, 
therefore,  we  should  leave  out  all  forms  of  expression  which 
are  offensive  in  themselves.  It  is  not  sufficient  to  talk 
as  other  people  talk,  or  to  talk  so  that  other  people  can 
understand  you.  To  attain  beauty  of  style  it  is  necessary 
that  you  satisfy  a  higher  standard  of  purity,  and  talk  as 
other  people  ought  to  talk. 

Melody  is  that  characteristic  of  beauty  which  renders 
the  style  pleasing  to  the  ear.     It  is  a  fact  which  we 
all  recognize  that  certain  combinations  of      -R/r  i  j 
words  sound  better  than  other  combinations. 
Eleanor  is  ever  to  most  of  us  a  prettier  name  than  Hepzi- 
bah  even  if  we  have  known  a  Hepzibah  who  was  dearer  to 


170  FORM  1 

us  than  any  Eleanor  could  be.  Now  as  arguments  are 
primarily  to  be  spoken,  it  follows  that  he  who  chooses 
words  with  reference  to  their  sound  will  have  an  advan- 
tage over  him  who  does  not.  Compare  the  melody  that 
is  found  in  any  of  the  orations  of  Wendell  Phillips  with  the 
clear  and  forceful  but  not  beautiful  style  of  Carl  Schurz. 
Whatever  may  be  the  argumentative  ability  of  either 
writer,  there  is  no  question  but  that  Phillips  charms  us  by 
the  very  rhythm  of  his  sentences.  When  he  appeals  to  us 
as  "blue-eyed  Saxons,  proud  of  your  race,"  we  do  not  stop 
to  think  that  we  may  not  be  blue-eyed  at  all.  The  melody 
of  the  sentence  pleases  us  and  carries  us  with  the  speaker. 
Phillips  undoubtedly  did  not  dehberately  choose  the  adjec- 
tive "blue-eyed."  It  probably  fell  into  its  place  spontane- 
ously, and  yet,  if  eliminated  from  the  sentence,  the  harmony 
is  spoiled.  Again,  when  Hemy  Grady  describes  the  return- 
ing confederate  soldier  and  alludes  to  him  as  "a  hero  in 
gray  with  a  heart  of  gold,"  he  chooses  words  largely  for 
their  sound.  He  could  have  expressed  the  idea  perhaps 
as  accurately  in  a  dozen  different  ways,  but  he  would 
not  have  pleased  the  ear.  The  very  sound  of  the  words, 
independent  of  their  sense,  makes  a  persuasive  appeal 
to  our  hearts. 

Not  only  does  this  melody  manifest  itself  in  the  choice 
of  words,  but  it  also  appears  in  their  arrangement.  There 
is  a  certain  balance  or  cadence  to  the  speech  of  some  men 
which  is  pleasing  in  itself.  When  Webster  closed  his 
splendid  peroration  with  the  words  "Liberty  and  Union, 
now  and  forever,  one  and  inseparable,"  he  deliberately 
balanced  his  phrases  for  rhetorical  effect  with  a  most 
admirable  result.  A  more  sustained  example  is  found 
in  an  oration  of  Edward  Everett's  which  is  but  Uttle 


BEAUTY  171 

remembered  at  the  present  time.  He  is  describing  the 
American  Indian  and  puts  these  words  into  the  mouth  of 
King  Philip: 

"Thou  hast  taught  me  thy  arts  of  destruction;  for  that  alone 
I  thank  thee.  And  now  take  heed  to  thy  steps:  the  red  man  is 
thy  foe.  When  thou  goest  forth  by  day,  my  bullet  shall  whistle 
past  thee;  when  thou  liest  down  by  night,  my  knife  is  at  thy 
throat.  The  noonday  sun  shall  not  discover  the  enemy;  and  the 
darkness  of  midnight  shall  not  protect  thy  rest.  Thou  shalt 
plant  in  terror;  and  I  will  reap  in  blood.  Thou  shalt  sow  the 
earth  with  corn;  and  I  will  strew  it  with  ashes.  Thou  shalt  go 
forth  with  the  sickle;  and  I  will  follow  after  with  the  scalping- 
knife.  Thou  shalt  build;  and  I  will  bum; — till  the  white  man 
or  the  Indian  perish  from  the  land." 

We  may  perhaps  criticize  the  literary  merit  of  this  pass- 
age upon  other  grounds,  but  certainly  the  melody  pro- 
duced by  the  admirable  balance  of  phrases  and  words  is 
pleasing  to  the  ear.  The  speech  has  nearly  the  charm  of 
verse.  It  may  be  objected  that  all  this  is  apparently  artifi- 
cial, that  it  is  a  deliberate  subordination  of  sense  to  sound. 
Undoubtedly  that  is  sometimes  true,  for  there  are  speakers 
of  considerable  prominence  who  impress  us  as  being  mere 
phrase  makers,  but  the  man  who  has  a  message  to  deliver 
and  keeps  it  in  mind  is  surely  fortunate  if  he  can  at  the 
same  time  phrase  it  in  words  that  fall  musically  upon  the 
ears  of  his  audience.  No  man  can  do  it  deUberately,  but 
by  bringing  ourselves  in  contact  with  the  best  writers  we 
can  in  time  acquire  as  a  matter  of  habit  some  little  por- 
tion, at  any  rate,  of  the  skill  that  has  made  them  great. 

The  beauty  of  style  which  is  possessed  by  some  speakers 
and  writers  seems  to  find  its  source  in  the  third  charac- 
teristic which  we  have  called  imagination.     It,  too,  can- 


172  FORM 

not  be  deliberately  acquired.     It  is  to  a  great  extent  a 

natural  gift,  but  like  the  other  natural  gifts  it  is  capable 

of  cultivation  in  some  degree.    It  is  almost 
Imagination     ....  .  .  , 

me\"itably  present  m  persuasive  oraton*,  and 

manifests  itself  ordinarily  in  what  we  call  figures  of  speech. 

As  in  the  other  characteristics  of  beauty  its  manifesta- 
tions must  come  spontaneously  and  not  be  dragged  in  by 
the  heels  to  ornament  our  discourse.  To  be  effective 
it  must  appear  as  a  natural  expression  of  the  character  of 
the  speaker.  We  admire  the  imagen.'  of  Hemy-  Ward 
Beecher  but  cannot  think  of  it  in  connection  with  the 
speech  of  Abraham  Lincoln.  If  Mr.  Lincoln  had  ever 
tried  to  rival  his  eloquent  contemporary'  in  this  respect, 
the  result  must  have  been  failure;  and  yet  ^Ir.  Lincoln 
wa^  not  lacking  in  imagination,  and  it  manifests  itself 
in  his  great  speeches.  The  truth  of  the  matter  is  that 
each  man  employed  that  kind  of  discourse  which  was  best 
suited  to  his  character,  and  neither  deliberately  attempted 
to  intrcduce  an>i:hing  that  was  not  natural  to  him.  The 
student,  therefore,  who  deliberately  tries  to  adopt  figures 
of  speech  merely  to  embellish  his  oraton.'  may  achieve  an 
ornamental  style,  but  he  will  never  obtain  one  that  is 
beautiful.  Yet  if  he  cultivates  his  imagination  by  li\-ing 
with  those  writers  who  possess  it.  he  will  soon  see  in  his 
own  writing  and  speaking  an  inevitable  result.  The  plain 
things  of  life  ^ill  take  on  new  beauty,  and  that  beauty 
will  manifest  itself  in  his  choice  of  words  and  phrases. 
One  danger,  however,  he  must  avoid.  Certain  phrases 
which  originally  showed  imagination  have  been  so  dulled 
by  use  that  they  now  seem  to  betray  merely  a  lack  of  it. 
It  was  undoubtedly  a  genius  who  first  coined  the  phrase 
'"the  white  hght  of  truth,"  but  constant  repetition  has 


BEAUTY  173 

certainly  dimmed  its  lustre.  As  a  practical  suggestion  we 
give  here  a  list  of  phrases  which  although  possessing  the 
imaginative  quaUty  in  their  inception  have  now  become 
so  hackneyed  by  constant  use  that  they  no  longer  show 
this  characteristic:  Large  and  enthusiastic  audience,  en- 
dorse the  sentiments  of  the  previous  speaker,  the  plaudits 
of  the  crowd,  a  monster  mass  meeting,  from  time  immemorial, 
footprints  on  the  sands  of  time,  the  spirit  of  the  times,  in  the 
fulness  of  time,  a  path  of  roses,  the  primrose  path,  the  cup 
that  cheers,  from  out  the  distant  past,  the  pages  of  time,  his 
native  element,  a  sea  of  flame,  the  finger  of  fate,  chasing  the 
rainbow,  the  beckoning  hand  of  destiny,  hitch  your  wagon  to  a 
star,  embark  on  a  new  enterprise,  the  sea  of  life,  sail  the  un- 
charted seas,  the  man  of  the  hour,  in  the  midst  of  this  crisis, 
too  full  for  utterance,  satisfy  the  inner  man,  thrust  out  into  a 
cold  world,  robbed  of  his  destiny,  the  cruel  hand  of  fate,  the 
wide  wide  world,  the  starry  heavens,  the  spacious  firmament, 
shuffle  off  this  mortal  coil,  fade  into  oblivion,  launched  into 
eternity,  horny-handed  son  of  toil. 

Imagination,  as  we  have  said,  is  most  frequently  mani- 
fested by  the  use  of  figurative  language.    Without  going 
into  the  various  figures  of  speech  which  may    guffeestions 
be  used,  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  in  a  figure    for  using 
of  speech,  language  is  used  outside  of  its  ht-    figures  of 
eral  meaning.    Figurative  language  is  not  at 
all  confined  to  poets  or  even  to  prose  writers  of  acknowl- 
edged standing.     It  occurs  in  our  everyday  life  and  its 
presence  frequently  makes  ordinary  discourse  more  enter- 
taining.    Different  writers  have  from  time  to  time  sug- 
gested rules  to  be  observed  in  the  use  of  figurative  lan- 
guage.^   It  is  difficult  to  consider  imagination  bound  down 
^  See  Talks  on  Writiyig  English,  by  Arlo  Bates,  page  100. 


174  FORM 

by  rule  and  yet  certain  suggestions  as  to  the  use  of  figura- 
tive language  are  worthy  of  consideration. 

A  figure  should  be  used  only  for  a  definite  purpose  and 
never  simply  for  its  own  sake.  An  argument  is  not  some- 
A  figure  thing  that  can  be  ornamented  by  figures  of 
should  jus-  speech  laid  on  without  meaning.  The  in- 
"  y  1  se  elegance   of  such  a  process  can  be  easily 

understood  by  reading  those  authors  of  the  Elizabethan 
times  who  adopted  what  has  been  called  the  euphuistic 
style.  It  was  the  fad  at  that  time  for  the  wits  to  conduct 
conversation,  especially  between  ladies  and  gentlemen, 
in  extravagant  figure.  Strephon  and  Clorinda  trod  the 
stage  and  London  was  transformed  to  Arcady.  The  result 
was  far  from  being  beautiful,  and  the  reader  of  the  present 
time  notices  nothing  in  such  writing  except  its  general 
dulness.  In  a  similar  way  what  has  been  called  the  "  ante- 
bellum oratory"  in  America  is  not  pleasing  through  its 
very  extravagance  of  figure. 

All  figures  of  speech  should  be  easily  comprehensible. 

Sometimes  a  speaker  having  in  mind  an  apt  comparison 

.  ^  will  forget  that  he  is  to  use  his  figure  of 

A  figure  =>  ° 

should  be        speech   for   purposes    of   explanation,    and 

easily  un-  ^j^^^  ^f  ^^le  figure  is  not  itself  easily  under- 
derstood  . 

stood,  he  has  entirely  failed  of  his  purpose. 

It  is  valueless  to  compare  something  that  is  obscure  with 
something  that  is  still  more  obscure.  In  an  after-dinner 
speech  not  long  ago  a  physician  was  commenting  in  a 
facetious  way  upon  the  danger  which  he  had  run  in  com- 
ing to  the  dinner  in  an  automobile  driven  by  the  toast- 
master.  The  idea  which  he  expressed  was  not  novel,  but 
was  pleasant  enough  to  interest  the  audience.  In  speaking 
of  the  recklessness  of  the  driver  he  alluded  to  the  number 


BEAUTY  175 

of  speed  laws  that  were  broken,  and  adopting  the  language 
of  his  profession  said  that  it  was  not  only  a  fracture  of  the 
law,  but  a  "comminuted  fracture."  This  addition  to  his 
jest  hardly  elicited  a  smile  from  his  hearers.  The  reason 
is  obvious.  No  one  but  a  physician  would  have  a  deJBnite 
and  immediate  knowledge  of  what  a  comminuted  fracture 
was.  In  other  words,  his  figure  of  speech  was  not  easily 
comprehensible  by  a  large  majority  of  his  hearers,  and 
therefore  was  ineffective. 

Another  warning  is  never  to  make  a  comparison  with- 
out realizing  fully  what  it  is.    Sometimes  a  writer,  misled 
by  the  aptness  of  his  comparison  in  one    .    - 
particular,  will  use  it  only  to  have  it  turned    must  be  rea- 
against  him  with  teUing  force  in  another    sonably  ac- 
particular.    The  poUtical  orator  who  in  the 
process  of  a  campaign  likened  the  triumphant  career  of 
his  party  leader  in  the  campaign  to  Napoleon's  progress 
from  Elba  probably  did  not  think  until  reminded  by  an 
opponent  that,  after  all.  Napoleon's  progress  from  Elba 
ended  in  Waterloo  and  St.  Helena.    While  it  is  not  neces- 
sary that  a  simile  or  a  metaphor  should  be  accurate  in  all 
particulars,  we  certainly  should  take  care  that  it  is  not 
glaringly  inaccurate  in  any  obvious  respect. 

Great  care  should  be  taken  never  to  push  a  figure  too 
far.    The  inexperienced  in  writing  frequently  allow  them- 
selves to  be  carried  away  by  the  aptness  of    -.  g„„-.g 
an  illustration.    Having  found  a  hkeness  in    must  not  be 
one  respect,  another  similarity  suggests  it-    yarned  too 
self,  and  then  a  third  and  so  on  until  they 
build  up  triumphantly  a  structure  which  shows  no  little 
ingenuity.    A  government,  for  instance,  may  be  likened  to 
a  ship,  and  although  the  idea  is  not  a  new  one  and  was 


176  FORM 

not  new  even  when  Longfellow  spoke  of  the  "ship  of  state," 
it  is  still  passable.  An  ingenious  mind  can  undoubtedly 
find  many  analogies  between  the  various  parts  and  activi- 
ties of  a  ship  and  those  of  a  government.  The  ropes,  masts, 
decks,  rudder  and  pilot,  perhaps,  all  can  be  dupUcated  in 
similar  figures  of  speech.  If  a  writer,  however,  is  carried 
away  by  his  ingenuity,  he  will  find  that  not  only  does  he 
lose  in  beauty  from  his  very  profuseness  of  illustration,  but 
he  may  push  the  figure  to  a  point  where  attention  is  called 
to  its  weakness  rather  than  to  its  strength.  At  any  rate 
there  is  no  question  that  as  he  continues  to  harp  upon 
the  idea  it  loses  in  strength.  A  single  comparison  may 
serve  a  purpose,  but  a  monotonous  repetition  of  compari- 
sons only  serves  to  distract  attention  from  the  writing 
itself. 

The  imaginative  factor  is  worth  cultivating.  It  lends 
variety  to  one's  language,  and  variety  is  an  element  of 
beauty.  To  carry  the  imaginative  factor 
imagination  ^^  ^^  extreme,  however,  is  to  defeat  the  very 
end  for  which  you  are  striving.  Imagination 
that  has  become 'tiresome  has  ceased  to  be  imagination, 
and  in  becoming  tiresome  has  ceased  to  be  pleasing  to  our 
hearers.  Anything  that  is  unpleasant  is  by  the  very 
definition  of  our  term  opposed  to  beauty. 

The  fourth  characteristic  of  beauty  which  we  shall 
consider  is  wit.  Wit  in  argument  is  like  fire  in  our  or- 
dinary life,  a  most  useful  servant  but  a 
danger  ^^^  master.     Woe  to  the  writer  who  seeks 

only  to  be  funny,  especially  if  he  gets  that 
reputation  fastened  upon  him.  Men  will  not  be  convinced 
by  one  whose  object  seems  to  be  to  amuse  them,  and  a 
speech  which  in  the  language  of  the  newspapers  brings 


BEAUTY  177 

forth  "gales  of  laughter"  may  founder  and  sink  in  those 

very  gales.    The  first  thing,  therefore,  for  a  writer  to  bear 

in  mind  is  that  while  his  audience  may  laugh  with  him, 

they  should  never  laugh  at  him.    A  speaker  who  drags  in 

humorous  anecdotes  one  after  the  other  may  entertain  his 

audience,  and  in  some  forms  of  speaking  entertaining  the 

audience  is  the  thing  desired.     The  man  who  argues, 

however,  has  a  different  purpose  in  view,  and  if  he  makes 

his  audience  smile,  it  should  be  only  as  a  means  to  an  end. 

In  spite  of  the  danger,  however,  which  attends  the  use 

of  wit,  it  is  most  effective  when  rightly  used.    When  Mr. 

Grady,  for  instance,   in  his  speech  upon 

^V^it — its 
' '  The  New  South ' '  remarked  that  the  people    y^lue 

in  his  section  of  the  country  (Atlanta,  Ga.) 
regarded  General  Sherman  as  "an  able  man  although 
somewhat  careless  with  fire,"  he  hghtened  the  serious- 
ness of  his  theme  with  his  wit,  and  certainly  did  not 
detract  from  the  effectiveness  of  his  speech.  An  epi- 
grammatic characterization  will  frequently  make  an  au- 
dience laugh  and  at  the  same  time  drive  home  a  point 
with  telling  force.  When  President  Lincoln  told  certain 
critics  of  General  Grant  who  were  complaining  that  the 
General  drank  whisky,  that  he  wished  he  could  find 
out  what  kind  he  used  so  that  he  could  send  some  to 
his  other  generals,  the  wit  of  the  reply  certainly  added  to 
the  keenness  of  the  argument.  Brevity,  however,  is  said 
to  be  the  soul  of  wit,  and  in  writing  an  argument  that 
adage  should  be  borne  in  mind.  No  matter  how  apt  a 
story  or  an  anecdote  is,  it  will  not  be  effective  if  it  is  too 
long.  For  this  reason  the  witty  phrase  or  the  epigram- 
matic sentence  is  ordinarily  better  than  the  humorous 
story  or  the  elaborated  jest,  for  the  latter  take  the  atten- 


178  FORM 

tion  of  the  audience  for  too  long  a  time  from  the  subject 
under  discussion.  If  the  witty  point  can  be  made  in  half 
a  sentence,  well  and  good.  If  it  requires  a  paragraph,  the 
writer  had  better  look  to  it  closely  and  see  if  it  is  worth 
while.  In  the  consideration  of  all  the  other  characteristics 
of  beauty,  we  have  commented  upon  the  fact  that  it  is 
difficult  deliberately  to  acquire  them,  even  as  it  is  difficult 
deliberately  to  acquire  a  beautiful  style  itself,  but  it  is 
doubly  hard  to  acquire  this  characteristic  of  wit  because 
the  failure  is  so  disastrous.  The  writer,  therefore,  who 
seeks  to  make  use  of  this  characteristic  should  realize 
that  he  is  indeed  playing  with  edged  tools. 

After  all  the  entire  question  of  beauty  in  style  may  be 
summed  up  by  saying  that  it  consists  in  the  preservation 
Balance  be-  ^^  ^  certain  balance  in  our  writing.  On 
tween  beauty  the  one  hand  we  have  the  desire  to  please, 
e  ciency  ^^^  ^^  matter  whether  beauty  is  secured 
by  one  or  more  of  the  four  characteristics  which  have 
been  suggested,  or  by  any  of  the  numerous  others  which 
may  come  to  our  minds,  the  fundamental  idea  is  always 
this  idea  of  pleasure.  As  opposed  to  this  we  have  the 
primary  object  of  argument  which  after  all  is  not  to  please 
but  to  convince.  If  in  our  desire  to  interest  and  please 
those  who  hear  us,  we  succeed  in  distracting  their  atten- 
tion from  the  primary  purpose  of  our  art,  then  our  style 
has  detracted  from  our  argument  rather  than  added  to  it. 
Properly  used,  the  quaUty  of  beauty,  hke  the  qualities  of 
clearness  and  force,  tends  to  help  us  in  our  endeavor  to 
communicate  our  message.  When  it  goes  beyond  that, 
it  defeats  its  own  purpose  and  ceases  to  be  beauty. 


CHAPTER  XIII 
WRITING  THE  ARGUMENT 

"If  to  do  were  as  easy  as  to  know  what  were  good  to 
do,  chapels  had  been  churches,  and  poor  men's  cottages 
jM-inces'  palaces."  Doubtless,  also,  the  arguments  writ- 
ten in  our  colleges  had  been  models  of  composition.  While 
the  principles  laid  down  in  the  chapters  on  style  sound 
good,  it  is  another  matter  to  apply  them.  It  is  one  thing 
to  know  the  theory  of  clearness,  force,  and  beauty,  but 
it  is  another  to  make  our  arguments  clear,  forcible,  and 
beautiful.  No  one  can  furnish  a  perfect  recipe  for  writing 
an  argument,  but  there  are  a  few  general  suggestions, 
most  of  them  mentioned  or  explained  at  length  in  the 
preceding  chapters,  which  it  is  particularly  important  to 
keep  in  mind  throughout  the  process.  Then  there  are 
other  specific  suggestions  which  apply  to  the  various  parts 
of  the  argument. 

The  first  suggestion  of  general  application  is  that  we 

should  avoid  all  mechanical  and  formal  expressions.    We 

should  avoid  the  numbering  of  points.     It 

is  true  that  numbering  does  make  for  clear-   artificiality 

ness;  it  points  out  definitely  certain  things. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  tends  to  make  a  style  uninteresting; 

it  leaves  nothing  to  the  imagination.    We  all  know  how 

tiresome  it  is  to  read  the  I's,  2's,  3's,  4's,  or  a's,  b's,  c's  of 

legal  or  scientific  treatises  in  which  we  have  no  unusual 

interest.    It  may  be  true  that  in  a  style  where  clearness  is 

179 


180  FORM 

the  sole  essential,  and  force  is  a  minor  matter,  the  device 
of  numbering  or  lettering  points  is  desirable  or  at  least 
excusable.  This  applies  to  extensive  treatises  of  all  kinds 
and  possibly  to  text-books.  It  does  not  apply  to  our 
arguments,  for  in  them  it  is  just  as  important  to  interest 
our  audience  as  to  make  our  message  clear;  if  they  do  not 
listen,  they  cannot  understand.  Yet  there  is  one  place 
in  our  argument,  as  we  shall  see  later,  where  it  is  permissi- 
ble to  enumerate  points:  it  is  the  one  place  where  above 
all  clearness  is  essential — the  statement  of  the  main  issues 
at  the  end  of  the  introduction. 

We  should  not  only  avoid  all  numberuig  or  lettering  of 
points,  but  also  the  technical  or  quasi-technical  terms  of 
argument  itself.  We  hke  such  terms  in  argument  no 
better  than  in  any  other  form  of  writing.  Even  if  we 
understand  what  they  mean,  they  become  deadly  monot- 
onous. The  following  is  a  Ust  of  terms  to  be  avoided: 
origin  of  the  question,  history  of  the  question,  conflicting 
opinions,  clash  in  opinion,  extraneous  matter,  excluded 
matter,  waived  matter,  special  issues,  main  issues,  affirma- 
tive, negative,  contend,  maintain,  refute,  opponent,  discus- 
sion, argument,  debate. 

The  second  suggestion  of  general  appUcation  is  that 
we  should  cultivate  a  simple  direct  style.  This  is  doubly 
desirable  in  an  argument  which  is  intended 
simple°style  ^°  ^^  delivered.  Of  course  variety  is  an 
element  of  charm  and  of  interest,  but  va- 
riety in  simpler  sentence  forms  and  in  shorter  words  is 
not  impossible.  The  short  sentence,  the  short  Anglo- 
Saxon  word,  have  a  terseness  and  a  strength  that  are 
foreign  to  the  Teutonic  sentences  and  the  Latin  words. 
The  appeal  of  our  slang,  however  faulty,  is  that  by  the 


WRITING  THE  ARGUIVIENT  181 

use  of  short  words  and  simple  sentences  a  thought  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  most  direct  fashion.  Of  course  we  must 
not  desert  the  shrine  of  good  use,  but  surely  simplicity 
and  good  use  are  not  strangers  to  each  other.  An  interest- 
ing example  of  what  one  writer  ^  has  done  with  Anglo- 
Saxon  words  of  one  syllable  is  given  below.  Students 
should  not  consider  this  as  a  model  because  it  was  not 
written  as  such,  but  it  is  a  striking  illustration  of  the 
homely  strength  of  the  Saxon  part  of  our  mother  tongue. 

"That  part  of  our  speech  which  comes  down  from  our  sires, 
far  back  in  the  days  of  yore,  is  made  up  in  large  part  of  those 
words  which  we  can  speak  with  one  pulse  of  the  breath  and  one 
stroke  of  the  tongue.  The  stream  of  time,  through  a  long  tract 
of  years,  and  from  lands  not  our  own,  has  brought  down  to  us 
a  vast  drift  of  new  and  strange  terms,  poor  as  they  are  long,  by 
which  we  lose  in  strength  more  than  we  gain  in  sound.  But  the 
good  old  stock  of  words  is  not  lost.  They  shine  out  here  and 
there  from  the  heap  in  bright  points,  like  stars  when  a  fog  dims 
the  air,  or  the  face  of  the  sky  is  dark  with  clouds.  It  will  pay 
us  for  our  toil  to  mine  out  these  gems  and  string  them  on  the 
chain  of  our  thoughts,  which  will  then  shine  with  a  new  hght; 
and  though  the  tongue  may  lose  in  sound,  it  will  be  all  the  more 
firm  to  speak  all  that  the  deep  soul  can  feel.  The  heart  beats 
throb  by  throb,  and  thus  the  tongue  should  keep  in  tune  while  it 
vents  the  heart's  joys  and  pains.  The  art  of  life  and  the  lore 
of  the  head  may  call  for  terms  cold  and  long;  but  let  all  that  the 
heart  thinks  and  feels  come  from  the  depths  of  the  soul  in 
thoughts  'that  breathe  and  words  that  burn.' " 

It  is  not  a  bad  exercise  to  train  ourselves  by  writing  a 
whole  argument  with  no  word  of  more  than  three  syllables 
in  it.    There  is  a  great  temptation  here  to  cite  again  Lin- 
coln's Gettysburg  Address  as  an  example  of  what  a  speech 
1  G.  W.  McPhail. 


182  FORM 

ought  to  be,  in  this  case  in  the  matter  of  simplicity  of 
diction.  In  that  oration  of  two  hundred  and  sixty-five 
words  only  seven  per  cent  of  the  words  are  of  more  than 
two  syllables  and  in  seventy-three  per  cent  there  is  only 
one. 

The  third  general  suggestion  is  merely  another  reminder 
of  the  importance  of  being  concrete.  This  is  so  large  an 
element  of  force,  and  it  was  so  strongly 
emphasized  in  the  chapter  on  that  quaUty 
of  style,  that  it  is  enough  here  simply  to  reiterate  the  need 
of  it.  We  must  avoid  abstract  discussions  and  make  use 
of  facts,  examples  and  illustrations  whenever  opportunity 
offers. 

The  fourth  suggestion  is  to  be  concise.  This  subject, 
too,  has  been  treated  so  fully  that  merely  a  word  of  re- 

_      .  view  is  necessary.     Conciseness  means,  as 

Conciseness  ,        .        i  ,        . 

was  said  above,  brevity  plus  comprehensive- 
ness; it  is  saying  much  in  little.  An  audience  will  listen 
to  a  terse  meaty  message,  but  it  will  be  tired  out  by  a 
long-drawn  wordy  one. 

All  of  these  suggestions  have  been  treated  in  previous 
chapters  at  greater  or  less  length.  They  are,  however,  so 
fundamental,  that  it  seems  best  to  emphasize  them  and 
if  possible  to  have  them  constantly  before  the  student's 
mind  when  he  writes  his  arguments.  This  does  not  mean 
that  the  other  principles  are  of  less  importance  but  simply 
that  these  are  fundamentals  of  a  tangible  and  definite 
sort  which  can  be  readily  grasped  and  easily  put  into 
practice. 

Keeping  the  preceding  suggestions  constantly  in  mind, 
we  come  to  the  actual  writing  of  the  forensic.  The  first 
thing  that  confronts  us  is  our  brief.    What  use  shall  we 


WRITING  THE  ARGUMENT  183 

make  of  it?  The  answer  seems  to  be  that  it  has  to  a 
great  extent  already  fulfilled  the  purpose  for  which  it 
was  constructed.  The  brief  was  to  make  us 
think  clearly  and  this  should  all  have  been  ^^j^^f 
done  before  we  start  to  write.  From  now  on 
the  brief  can  be  only  a  guide  to  follow,  and  that  is  com- 
paratively a  minor  purpose.  Then  too,  there  is  danger  in 
following  too  closely.  It  may  be  that  one  is  to  be  com- 
mended who  makes  two  blades  of  corn  grow  where  one 
grew  before,  but  a  writer  who  merely  makes  two  sentences 
appear  in  his  argument  where  one  appeared  in  his  brief 
is  not  entitled  to  praise.  A  padded  brief  is  an  artificial 
argument.  But  if  we  write  with  the  brief  before  us  it  is 
difficult  to  avoid  this  fault.  It  is  suggested,  therefore, 
that  the  brief  be  closed  or  even  put  in  an  inconvenient 
place,  a  desk  drawer  perhaps,  so  that  the  writer  is  not 
tempted  to  refer  to  it  too  frequently.  If  this  is  done,  it 
can  be  used  as  an  outUne  or  a  reference  without  having 
its  constant  presence  threaten  to  drive  the  author  into 
artificiaUty. 

We  find  as  we  progress  in  the  writing  of  the  argument 
that  many  of  the  principles  of  style  have  a  special  appUca- 
tion  to  certain  parts.    As  we  mentally  go 
through  the  construction  of  an  argument  let    guggegt-ons 
us  note  how  we  may  apply  particular  prin- 
ciples to  particular  parts. 

To  begin  at  the  beginning,  the  forensic  should  open  in 

a  manner  striking  enough  to  challenge  the  attention. 

Two   tests    this   opening   must   fulfill.     It    ^, 

^        <=>  1  lie  opening 

must  first  of  all  be  interesting.     It  must 

carry  out  to  the  very  fullest  extent  the  requirements  of 

the  quality  of  force.    It  must  wake  up  your  audience,  no 


184  FORM 

matter  how  apathetic  they  may  be  to  you  or  to  your  sub- 
ject. One  student  was  arguing  that  the  FiUpinos  should 
not  be  given  self-government.  The  gist  of  his  argument 
was  that  they  were  not  capable  of  it. 

"The  Filipinos,"  he  said,  ''are  Uke  a  little  barefoot 
brown  baby,  who  has  no  clothing  but  a  short  caUco  shirt, 
and  who  is  just  learning  to  walk  alone.  Shall  we,  the 
foster  parent  of  this  babe  of  color,  leave  it  to  perish  in 
ignorance,  or  shall  we  continue  to  guide  its  footsteps  until 
it  is  able  to  take  care  of  itself?  " 

Whatever  else  may  be  said  of  this  opening  it  caused  the 
audience  to  sit  up  with  a  smile  of  appreciation  and  of 
interest.  Another  student  was  arguing  in  favor  of  apply- 
ing Civil  Service  rules  to  the  police  of  a  certain  city.  He 
began  with  the  following  quotation: 

"The Police  are  like  balls  upon  a  pool  table;  they  are 

knocked  and  whacked  against  one  another,  followed  and  drawn, 
pocketed,  jumped,  and  spotted,  rolled  and  racked  and  counted, 
first  one  way  and  then  another,  framed  and  '  busted '  and  broke 
at  the  will  and  caprice  of  those  who  are  pleased  to  play  the  game 
for  glory  or  gain,  for  place  or  power,  for  pohcy  or  for  purity." 

The  method  used  in  each  of  these  cases  is  a  striking 
comparison.  This  device  is  rather  mechanical,  but  it 
can  be  used  effectively.  It  is  for  us  to  improve  upon  this 
method  and  show  some  originahty  in  the  opening,  at  the 
same  time  making  it  as  interesting  as  we  can. 

Not  only  must  this  opening  fulfill  the  requirements  of  the 
quality  of  force,  but  it  must  also  conform  to  the  principle 
of  unity.  No  matter  how  forceful  the  story  or  quotation,  if 
it  is  not  relevant  to  the  entire  subject,  it  destroys  the  unity 
of  the  composition.    To  satisfy  this  requirement,  the  be- 


WRITING  THE  ARGUMENT  185 

ginning  may  be  either  a  statement  of  the  occasion  for  the 
discussion  or  an  expression  of  the  key-note  or  basis  of  the 
whole  argument.  The  previous  illustration  comparing 
the  Philippine  Islands  to  a  little  brown  baby  gave  the 
key-note  to  the  one  argument — that  the  Filipinos  should 
not  be  given  self-government  because  they  were  incapable 
of  it.  The  other,  comparing  the  police  to  pool  balls,  ex- 
pressed the  basis  of  the  other — that  the  police  should  be 
put  under  civil  service  rules  because  they  are  now  the 
victims  of  political  jugglery.  Both  of  these  openings  ful- 
filled the  requirements  of  unity.  Another  kind  of  opening 
is  the  one  which,  it  is  said,  was  given  in  a  debate  in  which 
several  speakers  had  forgotten  their  speeches.  One 
speaker  began  like  this : 

"Lord  God  of  hosts,  be  with  us  yet, 
Lest  we  forget,  lest  we  forget." 

This  was  certainly  a  timely  and  interesting  opening, 
yet  no  one  can  deny  that  it  detracted  from  the  unity 
of  the  speech.  It  attracted  attention  to  the  wit  of  the 
speaker,  not  to  the  subject  on  which  he  was  speaking. 
It  would  have  been  much  better  to  begin  with  something 
just  as  striking  and  expressing  the  key-note  of  the  argu- 
ment. See,  for  example,  how  Robespierre  in  a  speech 
urging  the  abolition  of  capital  punishment  combines  both 
these  factors,  and,  indeed,  gives  in  one  paragraph  an  entire 
introduction  ending  with  a  categorical  statement  of  his 
main  issues. 

"When  the  news  came  to  Athens  that  in  the  City  of 
Argos  some  citizens  had  been  condemned  to  death,  the 
Athenians  ran  to  their  temples  and  implored  the  gods  to 
turn  them  from  contemplating  such  cruel  and  distressing 


186  FORM 

deeds.  I  now  come  to  pray — not  the  gods — but  legislators 
who  should  be  the  interpreters  of  the  eternal  laws  dic- 
tated by  God  to  man  to  efface  from  the  code  of  the  French 
people  those  laws  of  blood,  repellent  ahke  to  their  morals 
and  their  new  constitution,  which  demand  judicial  mur- 
ders. I  wish  to  prove,  first,  that  the  punishment  of  death 
is  essentially  unjust,  and  second,  that  it  is  not  the  most 
deterrent  of  punishments,  but  increases  crime  rather  than 
prevents  it." 

The  next  step  in  the  introduction  is  the  history  of  the 
question.    On  this  point  there  is  little  to  be  said,  but  that 

little  is  of  the  greatest  importance.  This 
Se^question    tiistorical  part  of  the  argument  should  be 

written  not  as  an  end  in  itself  but  merely 
as  a  means  to  an  end — to  explain  the  proposition  so  as  to 
make  clear  exactly  what  it  means.  To  do  so  does  not 
require  a  long  history  from  the  beginning  of  the  world; 
some  features  should  be  dwelt  on  at  a  greater  length  than 
others,  and  some  may  be  omitted  entirely.  Many  writers 
on  the  subject  of  woman  suffrage,  for  instance,  seem  to 
think  it  their  duty  to  write  essays  on  the  position  of 
women  among  the  Egyptians,  the  ancient  Hebrews,  the 
Greeks,  the  Romans,  the  Dark  Ages,  and  so  on,  before 
starting  to  write  an  argument.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  no 
matter  how  well  these  historical  sketches  are  written,  they 
will  throw  little  or  no  Hght  upon  the  question  of  to-day. 
The  writer  forgets  that  the  historical  material  is  included 
for  purposes  of  definition,  and  that  to  make  it  an  end  in 
itself  destroys  the  unity  of  the  speech.  The  history  of  the 
question,  therefore,  should  be  as  concise  as  is  consistent 
with  clearness;  the  sole  reason  for  its  existence  is  as  an 
explanation  of  the  meaning  of  the  question. 


WRITING  THE  ARGUMENT  187 

The  third  step  of  the  introduction,  the  definition  of 
terms,  must  be  treated  with  special  care.  It  is  a  very 
easy  matter  to  make  of  it  a  mere  dictionary- 
Hke  exposition.  There  can  be  nothing  worse  ^f  terms 
than  such  a  method,  and  it  is  better  to 
omit  all  definitions  entirely  than  to  follow  that  course. 
Indeed  in  many  cases  this  step  of  the  analysis  is  unneces- 
sary; the  history  of  the  question  or  the  common  knowl- 
edge concerning  the  topic  may  be  sufiicient.  If  some 
definition  is  necessary,  it  should  be  made  as  concise,  terse, 
and  interesting  as  possible.  Above  all  it  should  not  be 
over-elaborate  or  smack  of  the  dictionary.  Most  writers 
give  with  some  detail  various  methods  of  defining  a  term, 
by  etymology,  exemplification,  explication,  authority,  ne- 
gation, and  so  on.  It  is  hard  to  resist  the  temptation 
to  compare  these  methods  of  definition  with  Doctor 
Johnson's  definition  of  a  net-work,  quoted  by  Baker  and 
Huntingdon:'^  "anything  reticulated  or  decussated  at 
equal  distances  with  interstices  between  the  intersec- 
tions." In  other  words  the  -prions  methods  of  definition 
require  more  defining  than  the  term  to  be  defined.  The 
authors  of  this  book  are  of  the  belief  that  such  an 
analysis  of  the  process  is  of  only  theoretical  interest 
and  that  the  student  will  do  well  to  avoid  anything  so 
academic  as  an  attempt  to  differentiate  his  defini- 
tions. The  best  introduction  is  probably  that  in  which 
no  set  definition  of  terms  is  necessary.  The  best  def- 
inition is  that  which  is  as  concise,  simple,  and  natural 
as  possible. 

After  the  definition  of  terms  comes  the  conflict  of  opin- 
ions, and  this  is  the  great  stumbling  block  for  most  stu- 
1  Principles  of  Argumentation,  page  23. 


188  FORM 

dents  when  they  put  their  arguments  into  black  and 
white.  The  brief  here  is  Ukely  to  lead  them  astray.  The 
conflict  of  opinions  has  been  defined  as  a 
opinions  comparison  of  the  contentions  of  the  affirm- 

ative with  those  of  the  negative.  The  nat- 
ural thing  to  do,  therefore,  seems  to  be  to  start  two 
paragraphs  this  way: 

"The  affirmative  makes  these  contentions:  (1)  .  .  ." 
and  so  on. 

" The  negative  makes  these  contentions:  (1)  .  .  ."  and 
so  on. 

The  result  is  artificial,  mechanical,  monotonous,  and 
uninteresting  beyond  belief,  and  is  not  read  by  anyone, 
sometimes  not  even  by  the  instructors  who  are  paid  to 
read  it.  It  is  all  very  well  in  the  brief  to  make  the  conflict 
of  opinions  a  list  of  all  the  arguments  of  the  affirmative 
set  off  against  a  list  of  all  the  arguments  of  the  negative, 
because  the  purpose  there  is  in  part  at  least  to  aid  the 
writer  himself  by  a  process  of  ehmination  and  combina- 
tion to  find  what  are  the  fundamental  points  at  issue. 
In  the  completed  forensic,  however,  this  purpose  no  longer 
exists :  the  writer  has  already  reached  his  main  issues  and 
the  conflict  of  opinions  here  serves  merely  to  convince  the 
reader  of  the  reasonableness  of  the  analysis.  It  therefore 
follows  that  a  comparison  of  points  of  view  will  serve  this 
purpose  just  as  well,  for  all  that  is  desired  is  that  the  reader 
will  agree  with  the  point  of  view  of  the  writer.  Moreover, 
a  detailed  and  mechanical  comparison  of  minute  conten- 
tions would  defeat  its  own  purpose  by  tiring  the  reader 
and  distracting  his  attention  from  what  the  writer  was 
trying  to  accomplish.  In  the  woman  suffrage  question, 
for  instance,  it  would  be  much  better,  instead  of  enumerat- 


WRITING  THE  ARGUMENT  189 

ing  some  twelve  or  fifteen  contentions  on  each  side,  to 
sum  the  matter  up  as  follows : 


"People's  beliefs  on  this  subject,  as  on  most  others,  are  de- 
termined largely  by  the  point  of  view.  The  conservative  thinks 
that  whatever  is  is  right;  the  radical,  we  sometimes  suspect, 
thinks  that  whatever  is  is  wrong;  the  idealist  thinks  as  a  matter 
of  justice,  of  natural  right,  that  women  are  entitled  to  vote;  the 
statesman  opposes  suffrage  or  favors  it  according  to  what  he 
considers  its  political  effects  will  be;  the  politician  takes  his 
stand  according  to  what  he  believes  will  be  its  effects  on  him 
and  his  party;  the  professional  man  is  apt  to  consider  the  so- 
ciological results  on  the  race  and  on  women  themselves;  the 
common  citizen  generally  considers  in  his  own  experience  whether 
women  would  vote  honestly  and  efficiently  or  largely  as  senti- 
ment dictates.  When  we  discard  the  unworthy  motives  or  points 
of  view  we  find  there  are  comparatively  few  fundamental  ques- 
tions remaining:  (1)  .  .  ." 

Even  the  above  conflict  of  opinions  is  comparatively 

mechanical,  but  it  is  at  least  readable.    Furthermore,  it 

also  includes  the   reduction  to  its  lowest    Exclusion  of 

terms,  although  this  step  of  the  analysis  is    matter  from 

dismissed  with  the  phrase,  "When  we  dis-    ^^^  conflict 
^  •  /•    of  opimons 

card  the  unworthy  motives  or  pomts  of 

view."    Very  often  the  reduction  of  the  conflict  can  be 

handled  as  briefly  as  this  but  sometimes  the  exclusion  is 

not  so  apparently  justifiable,  and  the  attempt  to  make 

the  exclusion  amounts  to  actual  refutation.    Some  people 

who  argue  in  favor  of  or  against  woman  suffrage  contend 

that  the  question  whether  women  want  the  vote  is  not 

material,  because  voting  is  not  a  privilege  but  a  duty  to 

be  exercised  whether  or  not  the  voter  desires  to  vote. 

This  clearly  is  a  matter  of  refutation  and  refutation  being 


190  FORM 

nothing  more  than  negative  proof  should  be  included  in 
the  body  of  the  argument,  not  in  the  introduction.  It 
follows,  therefore,  that  if  a  student  and  his  opponent  dis- 
agree on  the  exclusion  of  a  material  point,  the  matter  of 
exclusion  is  a  main  issue  or  part  of  one.  This  whole  dis- 
cussion, however,  is  really  a  matter  of  structure  and  not 
of  form,  but  it  is  evident  enough  that  those  apparent 
matters  which  can  be  excluded  from  the  discussion  in  the 
introduction  should  be  treated  very  briefly  and  concisely. 
The  next  step  in  writing  the  argument  is  the  statement 
of  the  main  issues.    It  will  be  remembered  that  according 

to  the  first  general  suggestion  all  numbering 
m^nTs^sues    ^^  points  should  be  avoided,  except  in  this 

one  place.  It  is  so  fundamental  for  the  is- 
sues to  stand  out  conspicuously  that  here  we  are  wilhng  to 
sacrifice  beauty  to  clearness.  It  is  permitted,  therefore, 
and  even  desirable,  that  a  system  of  enumeration  of  one 
sort  or  another  be  used.  The  usual  method  is  similar  to 
that  of  Mr.  Gunraj  in  his  forensic  on  "Home  Rule  in 
Ireland:"  ^ 

"Sifting  the  case  thus,  we  begin  to  see  that  the  contest  has 
raged  around  three  points,  at  once  simple  and  fundamental,  the 
consideration  of  which  is  necessary  to  a  solution  of  our  question: 

"  First, — Does  Ireland  want  Home  Rule? 

"  Second, — Does  Ireland  need  Home  Rule? 

"  Third, — Will  Ireland  when  she  gets  Home  Rule  be  a  detri- 
ment to  the  interests  of  the  British  Empire?  " 

This  statement  of  the  issues,  while  not  perfect,  is  at  least 

clear;  it  also  makes  the  issues  stand  out  clearly  by  the 

mechanical  device  of  indenting,  and  by  the  very  fact  that 

this  is  the  only  place  in  the  forensic  where  enumeration  is 

1  See  Appendix. 


WRITING  THE  ARGUMENT  191 

used.     Robespierre's  paragraph  previously  quoted  is  as 
clear  and  much  more  artistic. 

In  the  next  task,  the  writing  of  the  body  of  the  argu- 
ment, the  proof,  the  simplest  method  is  to  treat  each  issue 
as  a  separate  small  argument  in  itself;  it  Each  issue  a 
should  have  its  own  introduction,  proof,  and  small  argu- 
conclusion.  In  this  way  the  issues  are  made  ^^ 
to  stand  out  with  almost  absolute  clearness;  the  line  be- 
tween them  is  made  as  distinct  as  possible.  Great  care 
must  be  taken,  however,  that  the  sub-argument  introduc- 
tions and  conclusions  be  not  too  elaborate,  for  then  they 
become  monotonous  and  destroy  the  interest  and  sym- 
metry of  the  whole. 

The  suh-argument  introduction  need  be  little  more  than 
a  statement  of  the  issue  with  perhaps  some  explanation 
of  the  method  of  approaching  it.      Notice 
the  way  Mr.  Gumaj  handles  the  beginning   Jf/adiTssue 
of  his  second  issue: 

"Let  us  turn  now  to  the  question:  Does  Ireland  need  Home 
Rule:  This,  too,  like  the  last  is  fundamental,  for  if  Ireland  does 
not  need  Home  Rule,  why  all  this  fuss  about  giving  it  to  her? 
But  how  are  we  to  tell  whether  she  needs  it  or  not?  What  is  the 
criterion  by  which  a  need  is  to  be  judged: 

"Plainly,  the  object  of  government  is,  or  should  be,  the  welfare 
of  the  governed.  This  is  a  proposition  too  well  conceded  to  be 
denied.  Some  may  conceivably  contend  that  the  object  of  a 
despotic  government  is  not  the  welfare  of  the  governed  but  of 
the  rulers,  but  even  despots  have  learned  that  the  welfare  of  the 
governed  best  contributes  to  their  own.  But  we  are  not  here 
concerned  with  despotic  governments.  We  who  believe  in  the 
democratic  principle  and  who  partake  of  its  blessings  cannot 
for  a  moment  hesitate  to  grant  that  the  welfare  of  the  people 
is  the  true  object  of  government.  Beheving  thus,  we  are  forced 
to  concede  that  a  government  which  fails  to  promote  the  happi- 


192  FORM 

ness  of  the  people  it  governs  has  failed  in  its  purpose  and  needs 
to  be  supplanted  by  one  more  adequate. 

"The  criterion,  then,  by  which  we  are  to  judge  Ireland's  need 
of  Home  Rule  is:  Has  the  present  form  of  government  by  a 
Parliament  overwhelmingly  British  succeeded  in  promoting 
Irish  welfare?  And  since  the  influence  of  government  on  the 
welfare  of  a  people  is  most  readily  seen  in  industry,  our  question 
resolves  itself  mainly  into  a  consideration  of  the  effects  of  British 
rule  on  the  economic  Ufe  of  the  Irish  people." 

This  introduction  to  the  issue  is  simple  and  clear;  it 
might  be  criticized  on  the  grounds  that  it  is  too  long,  and 
certainly  such  a  criticism  would  apply  to  most  college 
arguments.  In  this  case,  however,  the  treatment  itself 
is  much  more  extended  than  the  average.  In  all  arguments 
the  introduction  of  each  issue  should  be  at  least  a  state- 
ment of  that  issue;  how  much  additional  information 
should  be  included  depends  upon  the  nature  of  the  sub- 
ject and  the  scope  of  the  treatment. 

The  conclusion,  likewise,  to  each  sub-argument  must  not 
be  over-elaborate.     It  is  generally  desirable  to  make  it 

a  short  recapitulation  of  the  steps  by  which 
eac^hSe  °^  *^^  ^^^^^  ^^^  proved.     This  is  Mr.  Gunraj's 

summary  of  the  same  issue  that  the  Irish 
need  Home  Rule : 

"It  is  a  gloomy  page  which  tells  of  the  pohtical  and  industrial 
life  of  Ireland  under  English  rule.  England,  as  the  conqueror  of 
Ireland,  has  ruled  with  an  iron  hand  in  a  way  httle  short  of 
savage  tyranny;  as  Ireland's  legislator,  she  has  used  every  means 
in  her  power  in  effectually  blocking  the  avenues  to  industrial 
prosperity,  with  a  consequent  destruction  of  Irish  industry,  and 
a  decimation  of  Irish  population  unparalleled  in  modern  history. 
The  motives  which  have  guided  England  in  her  poUcy  have  been 
partly  commercial,  partly  religious  and  race  rivalry.    The  great 


WRITING  THE  ARGUMENT  193 

wrongs  which  Ireland  has  suffered  call  aloud  for  reparation. 
England  has  signally  failed  as  a  ruler  in  promoting  Irish  welfare, 
and  the  only  thing  she  can  do  to  atone  in  a  measure  for  her  un- 
justifiable treatment  is  to  make  Ireland  autonomous  and  allow 
her  to  work  out  her  own  destiny." 

The  most  commendable  feature  of  this  sub-argument 
summary  is  that  it  is  not  mechanical  or  perfunctory. 
So  many  students  would  sum  up  in  this  fashion:  "To 
summarize  this  issue,  Ireland  needs  Home  Rule,  because, 
as  has  been  shown,  England  is  incapable  of  understanding 
her,  she  has  suffered  tremendously  under  English  rule, 
and  she  is  able  to  govern  herself  better  than  England  is 
able  to  govern  her."  The  sub-argument  conclusion,  it  is 
true,  should  be  a  recapitulation  of  the  steps  by  which  the 
issue  was  proved,  but  particular  care  should  be  taken  to 
observe  the  first  general  suggestion  by  avoiding  all  me- 
chanical and  formal  methods  of  expression. 

While  we  have  made  suggestions  as  to  writing  the  intro- 
duction and  conclusion,  we  have  said  nothing  concerning 
the  writing-out  of  the  body  or  proof  of  each 
issue.     There   are    practically   no    specific  of^tiiTfs^ue* 
suggestions  to  be  made.     The  student  can 
do  little  more  than  put  into  practice  his  knowledge  of  the 
qualities  of  style. 

Can  we,  however,  leave  this  subject  of  writing  the  proof 
of  each  issue  without  saying  anything  about  refutation? 
The  questions  are  almost  hurled  at  us: — 
"What  shall  I  refute?"  "When  shall  I  re-  ^®^"***^°° 
fute?  "  "  What  proportion  of  the  argument  should  be  refu- 
tation? "  "  Where  shall  the  refutation  be  placed?  "  "  Can 
you  put  refutation  in  the  introduction?  "  These  and  many 
other  questions  show  that  in  the  minds  of  both  writers  and 


194  FORM 

teachers  of  argument  refutation  seems  to  be  some  peculiar 
style  of  composition  which  is  indeed  akin  to  argument  but 
yet  distinct  from  it  in  some  particulars.  This  is  not  true. 
Refutation  has  been  called  destructive  argument,  and  per- 
haps there  is  some  reason  for  the  use  of  that  word.  After 
all,  however,  it  is  not  essentially  different  from  any  other 
kind  of  argument.  The  same  principles  with  regard  to 
structure,  substance,  and  style  apply  to  refutation  as  to 
everything  else.  There  is,  however,  this  point  which 
should  be  noticed,  and  in  which  is  found  the  only  char- 
acteristic of  refutation  in  itself.  While  throughout  the 
argument  you  are  contending  with  your  opponents,  in 
refutation  you  are  meeting  their  views  as  they  themselves 
have  directly  expressed  them.  Your  entire  argument  is  to 
show  that  the  other  side  is  wrong  and  you  are  right,  but  in 
refutation  you  point  out  one  particular  thing  which  they 
have  asserted,  whether  it  be  big  or  little,  and  show  that 
that  particular  thing  is  wrong.  If  this  distinction  is  fun- 
damental, it  follows  that  refutation  has  no  particular  place 
in  the  argument  except  that  it  is  part  of  the  proof,  not  of 
the  introduction  or  of  the  conclusion.  It  is  proof,  not  in- 
troductory or  summarizing  matter.  It  becomes  necessary 
when  you  feel  that  the  views  of  the  other  side  are  so 
prominent  in  the  minds  of  your  hearers  that  they  must  be 
answered  at  that  time.  It  may  be  in  the  beginning,  or  the 
middle,  or  the  end  of  the  proof.  An  entire  issue  may  be 
given  up  to  refutation  at  one  time,  while  at  another  time, 
possibly  in  the  same  argument,  an  idea  may  be  refuted  in  a 
sentence  or  even  in  a  phrase.  To  attempt  to  tell  where  it 
belongs,  or  how  to  express  it,  would  be  of  little  value.  This 
one  principle  should  always  be  observed.  In  constructing 
the  brief  you  are  told  to  designate  with  a  negative  clause 


WRITING  THE  ARGUMENT  195 

the  argument  to  be  refuted.    In  other  words,  the  structure 

of  the  brief  demands  that  in  the  first  place  you  make  clear 

exactly  that  which  you  are  going  to  refute.    What  is  true  of 

the  brief  is  doubly  true  of  the  argument.    It  is  essential 

to  clearness  that  refutation  should  be  phrased  so  that  the 

audience  may  have  in  mind  exactly  what  is  being  refuted. 

To  introduce  a  piece  of  evidence  or  a  line  of  reasoning 

without  telling  the  audience  beforehand  the  point  at 

which  it  is  aimed  is  to  sacrifice  both  clearness  and  force. 

The  one  rule,  therefore,  for  writing  refutation  is  to  make 

it  perfectly  plain  just  what  you  are  going  to  do,  and  equally 

as  plain  just  how  you  are  doing  it. 

There  is  one  matter  of  practice  in  writing  the  issues,  and 

indeed  the  whole  argument,  which  may  prove  of  value. 

Many  writers,  old  and  young,  experienced    x^gviment 

and  inexperienced,  have  found  that  by  laying    should  not 

their  work  aside  for  several  days  or  a  week    "f  written 
•  ,    <.      .         1      •    1      ^*  0^6  tune 
they  can  go  back  to  it  with  freshened  mind, 

opinions,  and  point  of  view.    As  Professor  Wendell  says, 

"Words  and  sentences  are  subjects  of  revision;  paragraphs 

and  whole  compositions  are  subjects  of  prevision."  ^    This 

revising  can  be  done  most  efficiently  not  while  you  are 

writing  but  some  time  afterward  when  you  are  able  to  view 

the  work  dispassionately.     Connected  with  this  device  is 

another  which  many  have  tried  with  success.     Do  not 

try  to  write  the  whole  argument  in  one  stretch,  but  after 

you  have  collected  all  your  materials  and  written  the 

brief,  write  the  introduction  at  one  time;  the  first  issue 

at  another;  and  so  on.    But  be  sure  to  make  the  conclusion 

a  separate  task.    This  method  will  prevent  the  frequent 

criticism  that  the  student  seems  to  have  run  down  near 

^English  Composition,  page  117. 


196  FORM 

the  end  of  his  argument.  It  will  also  insure  the  proper 
amount  of  care  on  that  part  of  the  argument  than  which 
no  part  is  more  important,  the  conclusion. 

We  are  almost  tempted  to  leave  this  subject  without 
making  any  suggestions  as  to  how  to  write  the  conclu- 
Conclusion  ^^^^^  ^^  ^^^  argument.  If  a  writer  has  stud- 
should  be  ied  the  question,  has  analyzed  it,  and  has 
clothed  his  thought  in  words  down  to  the 
very  end  of  his  proof,  it  would  seem  that  his  conclusion 
ought  to  write  itself.  If  after  all  that  endeavor  one  cannot 
write  the  final  words  with  "a  tongue  of  fire,"  we  suspect 
that  there  is  but  little  fire  in  his  make-up.  An  examina- 
tion of  almost  any  argument  written  by  a  master  of  his 
subject  shows  that  in  the  conclusion  he  is  at  his  very  best. 
He  then  gathers  together  all  the  material  which  he  has 
at  hand,  and  forges  one  final  thunderbolt  to  be  thrown 
into  the  world  with  all  the  force  that  is  in  him.  One 
might  as  well  try  to  teach  a  runner  how  to  make  the 
final  heart-breaking  sprint  which  tells  the  difference 
between  victory  and  defeat  as  to  tell  a  man  who  has 
written  a  good  argument  how  he  should  bring  it  to  a 
close. 

Yet  there  are  some  things  which  we  will  do  well   to 

notice.    In  the  first  place  it  may  be  doubted  if  under  any 

circumstances  it  is  advisable  to  introduce 
Avoidance  of  j.^.      •  j.     ^.u  i     •  t^u 

new  matter      ^^^  ^^'^  matter  mto  the  conclusion.     The 

argument  has  been  written;  everything 
that  is  of  value  in  analysis  or  proof  should  have  been 
made  plain  long  ago.  The  introduction  of  a  new  thought 
which  properly  belonged  in  the  development  of  the  case, 
or  in  its  proof  destroys  the  unity  of  the  entire  composi- 
tion, detracts  from  its  clearness,  and  certainly  diminishes 


WRITING  THE  ARGUMENT  197 

its  force.  We  are,  therefore,  justified  in  believing  that 
the  only  things  which  can  appear  in  the  conclusion  in  an 
argument  are  those  which  appear  in  the  conclusion  of  our 
brief,  that  is  to  say,  a  recapitulation  of  the  proof  and  a 
final  statement  of  the  question  in  the  form  of  a  persuasive 
appeal  upon  its  merits. 

The  recapitulation  of  the  proof  should  never  be  so 
extended  as  to  cause  confusion.  It  is  obvious  at  once 
that  we  cannot  go  over  the  ground  again,  Recapitula- 
following  out  each  thought  and  reproducing  tion  in  the 
it.  The  purpose  of  the  recapitulation  is  ^°°^  usion 
to  suggest,  not  to  repeat,  the  arguments  that  have  gone 
before.  It  certainly  helps  our  hearers,  after  we  have  con- 
cluded the  treatment  of  perhaps  a  fourth  or  a  fifth  issue, 
if,  as  briefly  as  is  consistent  with  clearness,  we  remind 
them  of  the  substance  of  the  preceding  issues,  but  we 
should  remember  that  it  is  only  a  reminder;  it  is  not  a 
retrial  of  the  case.  How  long  this  should  be  depends 
upon  the  nature  and  length  of  our  argument.  If  we  have 
been  successful  in  analyzing  it  to  one  comparatively 
simple  issue,  the  recapitulation  is  hardly  necessary.  If, 
however,  the  argument  is  long,  with  many  subdivisions, 
careful  recapitulation  at  considerable  length  will  tend  for 
clearness.  If  the  writer  bears  in  mind  that  his  only  en- 
deavor should  be  to  bring  his  argument  back  to  the  minds 
of  his  hearers  so  that  they  can  appreciate  the  value  of  his 
final  appeal,  he  will  not  go  far  astray.  Again  we  must 
urge  the  avoidance  of  artificiality.  Sometimes  we  find  a 
conclusion  that  is  merely  a  restatement  of  the  issues 
almost  word  for  word,  followed  by  a  statement  of  the 
question  itself.  Such  a  device  is  mechanical  even  in  a 
geometrical  proposition  where  it  belongs.     In  an  argu- 


198  FORM 

ment  which  is  intended  to  reach  our  hearts  and  minds, 
it  is  inartistic  in  the  extreme. 

The  final  appeal  is  the  writer's  last  and  best  oppor- 
tunity for  persuasive  writing.    All  that  he  has  done  has 
been  in  a  sense  preparatory  to  these  final 

„•!?«  y^J^!^^~  words  which  he  is  to  leave  with  his  audience, 
sive  appeal 

It  is  therefore  true  that  here  there  must  be 
no  quaUfication  of  his  original  proposition.  If,  after  writ- 
ing an  argument,  a  student  finds  that  he  cannot  assert 
his  original  contention  as  forcibly  as  he  did  at  the  begin- 
ning, but  that  on  the  contrary  he  wishes  to  qualify  it  to 
some  extent,  he  should  realize  that  he  never  can  con- 
vince any  other  person  that  he  has  proved  his  case.  The 
slightest  indication  of  weakening  is  always  interpreted 
as  a  partial  abandonment  of  the  original  proposition, 
and  no  amount  of  explanation  or  excuses  can  ever  make 
it  seem  anything  else.  The  last  sentences  of  the  conclu- 
sion should  be  not  only  a  reassertion  of  the  original  prop- 
osition, but  they  should  be  also  a  reassertion  in  language 
which  has  force  and  beauty  and  which  is  the  chmax  of  the 
entire  argument.  They  should  be  a  final  persuasive  appeal 
to  drive  home  the  message.  If  the  very  last  words  can 
tell  the  story  of  the  argument  so  that  they  will  linger  in 
the  minds  of  those  who  hear  them  long  after  the  details 
of  the  proof  have  been  forgotten,  the  writer  will  have 
achieved  a  triumph  of  analysis.  Let  us  note  here  again 
the  art  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  who  is  becoming  more  and 
more  recognized,  as  the  years  go  on,  as  one  of  the  very  best 
exponents  of  analytical  argument.  The  concluding  sen- 
tences of  the  Gettysburg  Address  have  been  so  dinned 
in  our  ears  during  every  political  campaign  that  perhaps 
we  are  over-familiar  with  their  beauty.    It  is  said,  indeed, 


WRITING  THE  ARGUMENT  199 

that  they  are  not  original  with  Mr.  Lincoln.  They  still 
stand,  however,  as  one  of  the  best  examples  of  a  persuasive 
conclusion  which  has  within  it  the  essence  of  the  entire 
speech,  and  the  very  fact  that  the  words  "of  the  people, 
by  the  people,  and  for  the  people"  fall  so  readily  from  our 
tongues  to-day  is  an  undoubted  tribute  to  the  unconscious 
art  of  the  great  author.  The  ending  of  another  ^  of  Lin- 
coln's great  speeches  has  never  been  surpassed  for  sublime 
beauty  and  majestic  persuasive  appeal.  "With  malice 
toward  none;  with  charity  for  all;  with  firmness  in  the 
right,  as  God  gives  us  to  see  the  right,  let  us  strive  on  to 
finish  the  work  we  are  in;  to  bind  up  the  nation's  wounds; 
to  care  for  him  who  shall  have  borne  the  battle,  and  for 
his  widow,  and  his  orphan — to  do  all  which  may  achieve 
a  just  and  lasting  peace  among  ourselves,  and  with  all 
nations." 

In  closing  this  chapter  on  writing  the  argument  we 
cannot  help  recurring  to  the  quotation  with  which  it 
begins:  "If  to  do  were  only  as  easy  as  to    The  delivery 

know  what  were  good  to  do,"  how  easy  it    °^  y°^f  mes- 

sage    IS    the 
would  be  to  tell  how  to  write  an  argument,    end  of  argu- 

In  the  very  fact,  however,  that  it  is  not  ment 
easy  probably  lies  the  charm  of  the  entire  subject.  Argu- 
ment as  exemplified  in  its  highest  form,  oratory,  is  after 
all  an  art  and  not  a  science.  One  may  lay  down  rules  in 
the  sciences  with  confidence  that  their  observation  will 
bring  to  anyone  the  desired  results.  The  difficulty  in  a 
science  is  not  so  much  in  knowing  what  the  rule  is  as  in 
being  able  to  follow  it.  In  an  art  such  as  ours,  however, 
it  is  also  difiicult  even  to  know  the  rule.  The  bUnd  are 
indeed  leading  the  blind,  and  the  great  hope  of  the  teacher 
^  Second  Inaugural. 


200  FORM 

is  that  to  his  pupil  will  be  given  a  clearer  vision  than  to 
himself.  The  experience  of  centuries  has  done  no  more 
than  to  enable  men  to  make  here  and  there  a  suggestion. 
The  rest  lies  in  careful  thinking,  in  hard  work,  and  in 
inspiration.  If  the  student  who  has  read  these  pages 
looks  to  find  in  them  a  complete  guide  to  argument,  he 
looks  in  vain.  The  public  speaker,  as  we  have  said,  is  the 
man  with  a  message.  It  is  not  given  to  any  teacher  to  be 
able  to  furnish  either  the  message  or  the  man.  All  that 
he  can  hope  to  do  is  to  make  suggestions  which  will  en- 
able the  man  to  be  more  efficient  in  the  delivery  of  that 
which  is  after  all  of  the  highest  importance,  the  message 
itself. 


SUGGESTIONS   FOR   WRITING  AN  ARGUMENT » 

General 

A.  Avoid  mechanical  or  formal  forms  of  expression. 

1.  Do  not  number  points,  except  in  stating  the  issues  at 
the  end  of  the  introduction. 

2.  Do  not  use  any  of  the  following  technical  or  quasi-techni- 
cal terms  of  the  course,  or  derivatives  of  them: 

origin  of  the  question,  affirmative, 

history  of  the  question,  negative, 

conflicting  opinions,  contend, 

clash  in  opinion,  maintain, 

extraneous  matter,  refute, 

excluded  matter,  opponent, 

waived  matter,  discussion, 

special  issues,  argument, 

main  issv£s,  debate. 

3.  Do  not,  with  your  brief  before  you,  follow  it  step  by  step 
in  a  rigid  and  mechanical  way. 

B.  Be  simple: 

1.  Use  short  sentences. 

2.  Use  short  words. 

C.  Be  concrete: 

1.  Use  illustrations. 

2.  Use  examples. 

3.  Use  facts. 

4.  Use  figures. 

5.  Do  not  generalize. 

D.  Be  concise: 

1.  Conciseness  means  brevity  plus  comprehensiveness;  say 
"much  in  little." 

1  Offered  merely  as  a  working  guide  or  reminder  for  students  to 
have  before  them  when  wTiting. 

201 


202  FORM 

Introduction 

E.  Challenge  the  attention  in  opening  your  argument;  e.  g., 
with  a  quotation,  illustration,  incident,  epigrammatic  state- 
ment, or  striking  piece  of  evidence. 

F.  In  the  completed  forensic,  make  the  conflict  of  opinions 
a  comparison  of  points  of  view,  rather  than  of  detailed  con- 
tentions. 

G.  Have  the  main  issues  stand  out  clearly  at  the  end  of  the  in- 
troduction. 

Proof 

H.  In  the  body  of  the  forensic  write  a  short  separate  argument 
on  each  issue,  each  of  these  sub-arguments  having  its  own 
introduction,  body,  and  conclusion. 

1.  The  sub-argument  introduction  should  be  a  clear  presen- 
tation of  that  issue. 

2.  The  sub-argument  proof  should  be  a  presentation  of  the 
evidence  which  goes  to  prove  that  issue. 

3.  The  sub-argument  conclusion  should  be  a  recapitulation 
of  the  steps  by  which  that  issue  was  proved. 

Conclusion 

/.  Make  the  conclusion  of  the  forensic  consist  in  a  summary 
and  a  persuasive  appeal. 

1.  The  summary  should  be  a  recapitulation  of  all  the  issues 
and  of  the  steps  in  the  proof  of  them. 

2.  The  persuasive  appeal  might  take  the  shape  of  a  quota- 
tion, an  illustration,  an  incident,  or  a  brief  restatement 
of  the  whole  case  in  eloquent  words. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

DELIVERY  1 

It  is,  perhaps,  not  out  of  place,  even  in  a  book  which 
deals  with  the  composition  of  arguments,  that  some  space 
should  be  devoted  to  the  question  of  de-  ji^q  impor- 
livery.  A  fair  criticism  of  the  teaching  of  tanceofgood 
the  past,  however,  is  that  it  has  paid  too  ^  ^^^ 
much  attention  to  this  question.  Students  were  given 
practice  in  "speaking  pieces"  or  in  delivering  essays  and 
orations,  as  if  the  delivery  were  the  only  thing  of  impor- 
tance. Even  to-day  we  find  teachers  of  elocution  training 
their  pupils  in  the  delivery  of  selections  with  but  little 
thought  as  to  whether  the  selection  itself  is  worth  de- 
livering, and  when  consideration  is  paid  to  a  pupil's  own 
composition,  too  frequently  it  is  judged  purely  upon  its 
dramatic  possibilities  rather  than  upon  its  value  as  a 
piece  of  English.  It  is  not  the  purpose  of  this  book,  how- 
ever, to  minimize  the  value  of  the  proper  teaching  of 
vocal  English.  Every  student  who  intends  to  take  up 
work  which  will  require  him  to  speak  in  public  should 
obtain,  if  possible,  training  from  some  competent  instruc- 
tor in  elocution.  While  he  should  pray  to  be  delivered 
from  the  teacher  that  produces  that  abnormal  product, 
the  young  lady  reader  of  the  lecture  course  or  social 
entertainment,  he  should  realize  that  there  are  competent 
men  and  women  teaching  elocution  who  are  able  to  teach 

^  This  chapter  is  written  by  Mr.  Stone,  not  in  collaboration. 
203 


204  PRACTICE 

him  how  to  make  marked  improvement  in  pubUc  speaking. 
The  hints  that  follow  in  this  chapter  are  not  intended  to 
take  the  place  of  such  instruction.  They  will  serve,  how- 
ever, as  suggestions  to  those  who  for  one  reason  or  another 
are  not  able  to  avail  themselves  of  such  opportunities. 

In  the  beginning  it  is  valuable  to  realize  the  distinction 
between  the  public  speaker  and  the  actor.  It  is  no  dis- 
The  public  respect  to  those  who  practice  the  dramatic 
speaker  not  art  to  say  that  after  all  they  are  interpreters 
an  ac  or  ^^  ^^^^  thoughts  of  other  men  rather  than 

thinkers  and  doers  of  the  world's  work  themselves.  The 
actor  imitates,  pretends,  plays,  and  his  endeavor  should  be 
to  sink  his  individuaUty  in  the  character  that  he  is  repre- 
senting. The  public  speaker  should  also  keep  his  own  in- 
dividuality in  the  background,  but  not  for  the  same  reason. 

I  /The  actor  wishes  the  audience  to  see  another  person.    The 
j  \  public  speaker  does  not  wish  the  audience  to  see  any  per- 

;ison  at  all,  but  only  to  grasp  the  thought  that  is  expressed. 

\  Consequently  the  same  arts  that  will  justly  bring  the 
actor  success  will  be  ludicrous  in  the  public  speaker.  The 
public  speaker  is  the  man  with  a  message,  and  the  mes- 
sage is  the  all  important  thing.  The  messenger  is  false 
to  his  trust  if  he  strives  to  attract  attention  to  himself  at 
the  expense  of  the  truth  which  it  is  his  business  to  deliver. 
Emerson  said  in  speaking  of  this  subject,  "What  you 
are  speaks  so  loud  that  I  cannot  hear  what  you  say."  For 
The  speak-  ^^^^  reason  the  public  speaker  should,  in  the 
er's  outward  first  place,  take  care  not  to  distract  the  at- 
appearance  ^gntion  of  his  audience  by  his  personal  dress 
or  appearance.  No  man  is  to  blame  for  any  physical 
peculiarity  which  he  possesses,  but  he  is  to  blame  if  he 
exaggerates  it,  or  does  not  do  his  best  to  overcome  it. 


DELIVERY  205 

Peculiarities  in  dress  are  easily  controlled,  and  there  is 
no  excuse  for  a  public  speaker's  attracting  attention  by 
any  eccentricity  of  his  raiment.  He  should  dress  as  the 
gentlemen  in  the  community  in  which  he  is  speaking  dress 
on  similar  occasions.  There  is  no  regulation  garb  for  the 
public  speaker.  His  dress  may  well  vary  with  the  time, 
the  community,  and  the  character  of  the  audience,  but  it  is 
always  the  dress  of  a  cultured  person.  Extremes  of  style 
which  attract  attention  are  fully  as  bad  as  eccentricities 
due  to  a  disregard  for  conventionalities.  The  speaker 
should  remember  that  anything  in  his  dress  or  appear- 
ance that  attracts  the  attention  of  the  audience  distracts 
their  attention  from  the  message  which  it  is  his  duty  to 
deliver. 

It  is  customary  to  deliver  some  words  of  formal  address 
before  beginning  to  speak.  Consequently  the  omission 
to  do  this  would  be  noticeable  and  hence 
bad.  Just  what  shall  be  done  by  a  pubUc  address 
speaker  in  this  way  rests  largely  with  the 
taste  of  the  individual  speaking.  Under  ordinary  condi- 
tions it  seems  that  the  simplest  form  of  address  is  the  best. 
If  there  is  a  presiding  officer,  a  formal  address  and  a  formal 
salutation  to  him  is  certainly  courteous,  but  there  would 
seem  to  be  little  need  of  any  exaggeration.  At  some  time 
in  his  progress  to  the  platform  or  when  he  is  upon  the 
platform,  the  speaker  should  catch  the  eye  of  the  pre- 
siding officer,  bow,  and  address  him  as  Mr.  President,  or 
Mr.  Chairman.  That  would  seem  to  be  the  only  time  in 
which  any  formal  address  to  the  presiding  officer  is  ad- 
visable. The  habit  which  some  speakers  have  of  insert- 
ing at  frequent  intervals  during  their  speech,  "Mr.  Pres- 
ident," as  if  they  were  speaking  only  to  the  presiding 


206  PRACTICE 

officer  and  not  to  the  audience,  is  now  a  relic  of  the 
dark  age  of  oratory.  Upon  the  proper  address  to  the 
audience  there  seems  to  be  a  difference  of  opinion.  Some 
teachers  of  rhetoric  whose  abihty  and  good  taste  cannot 
be  criticized  advise  their  students  formally  to  address 
each  particular  portion  of  the  audience.  Accordingly, 
in  debates,  for  instance,  it  is  not  unusual  to  hear  a  speaker 
begin  somewhat  in  this  style:  "Mr.  President,  Honorable 
Members  of  the  Governing  Boards  and  Faculties,  Honor- 
able Judges,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen."  It  is,  perhaps,  the 
rule  in  intercollegiate  and  interscholastic  debates  for  the 
speakers  to  address  formally  the  judges  who  are  to  decide 
the  debate.  We  prefer  to  recoimnend  that  if  error  is 
made,  it  should  be  made  upon  the  side  of  simplicity.  There 
is  rarely  a  case  in  which  the  address,  ''Ladies  and  gentle- 
men," or  "Gentlemen,"  will  not  be  sufficiently  inclusive, 
and  sufficiently  courteous.  Anything  more  formal  seems 
to  increase  the  artificiahty  of  the  address,  and  this  in 
itself  is  not  desirable. 

Too  often  the  novice  at  public  speaking  is  apparently 
afraid  to  stand  upon  the  platform  without  saying  any- 
thing. Accordingly,  we  find  students,  even 
gin  sneaking  before  they  have  reached  the  position  from 
which  they  intend  to  speak,  starting  off  in 
the  opening  sentences  of  their  composition  with  the  speed 
of  scared  rabbits.  The  student  should  realize  that  a  slight 
pause  before  he  begins  to  speak  is  not  unnatural.  If  there 
is  a  desk  or  reading  stand  and  he  has  books  or  papers  which 
he  intends  to  use,  he  can  safely  place  them  or  arrange 
them  as  he  desires,  and  then,  when  his  audience  has  settled 
down  and  is  quiet,  begin  his  address.  To  the  practiced 
public  speaker  this  presents  no  difficulty.     He  seems  to 


DELH^RY  207 

select  with  unfailing  accuracy  the  time  when  he  is  ready 
to  begin  and  the  audience  is  ready  to  hear  him.  To  the 
novice  we  can  merely  say  that  while  too  long  a  wait  is 
awkward,  it  does  not  seem  to  be  the  fault  which  is  likely 
to  afflict  beginners  in  public  speaking.  They  are  more 
likely  to  begin  to  address  their  audiences  too  quickly  than 
to  wait  too  long. 

While,  as  has  been  said,  a  public  speaker  is  not  an  actor 
and  consequently  should  keep  his  personality  in  the  back- 
ground, nevertheless  he  is  seen  and  conse- 
quently he  must  pay  attention  to  his  ap-  the^olatfonn 
pearance  and  actions  when  he  is  upon  the 
platform.  The  first  thing  for  him  to  consider  is  the  po- 
sition which  he  should  take.  The  old  books  on  pubHc 
speaking  are  full  of  absurd  directions,  sometimes  illus- 
trated by  diagrams,  as  to  the  exact  position  which  a 
speaker  should  assume.  Such  instruction  is  worse  than 
useless.  Any  position  which  the  speaker  assumes  can- 
not be  kept  throughout  his  speech  without  becoming 
artificial.  He  should,  therefore,  stand  upon  the  plat- 
form as  he  stands  upon  the  ground,  like  a  human  being 
whose  position  after  all  is  important  only  in  so  far  as  it 
enables  him  to  speak.  If  a  friend  approaches  you  in  the 
house  or  on  the  street  and  begins  to  talk  to  you,  he  will 
probably  stand  naturally  on  both  feet.  There  would  seem 
to  be  no  reason  why  the  public  speaker  should  not  do 
the  same.  As  long  as  he  does  not  stand  upon  one  foot, 
and  hold  the  other  in  the  air,  or  wriggle,  or  writhe,  or 
twist,  or  sway,  he  will  not  excite  particular  comment.  If 
there  is  a  desk  or  reading  stand,  he  will  stand  near  it. 
A  good  speaker  can  rest  his  hand  or  his  arm  upon  it  with- 
out appearing  grotesque,  but  it  is  a  dangerous  support 


208  PRACTICE 

for  the  beginner.  Too  often  he  will  make  it  both  a  phys- 
ical and  a  mental  support,  and  will  perform  gymnastics 
by  its  aid  which  would  astound  him  if  he  could  sec  them 
reproduced.  It  is  not  uncommon  to  see  speakers  gripping 
the  desk  as  if  they  were  afraid  that  it  would  get  away  from 
them,  or  leaning  upon  it  to  such  a  degree  that  it  seems 
to  be  absolutely  essential  to  prevent  them  from  falling. 
Some  speakers  hide  behind  the  desk,  grasping  it  with 
both  hands,  and  at  impressive  periods  in  their  addresses, 
rise  on  their  toes  like  so  many  Jacks-in-the-box  to  startle 
and  astound  their  audiences.  It  is  dangerous  even  to 
touch  such  a  support  unless  you  arc  thoroughly  master 
of  yourself.  It  is  not  uncommon  to  find  a  student  under 
the  impression  that  he  is  only  resting  his  fingers  lightly 
upon  the  desk  when  in  reality  he  is  pressing  upon  the 
desk  with  force  enough  to  bend  his  fingers  backward, 
leading  the  audience  to  wonder  if  they  will  not  break.  Un- 
til you  are  thoroughly  master  of  yourself  upon  the  plat- 
form, it  is  better  to  leave  the  desk  alone.  Use  it  for  your 
books  and  papers,  and  if  you  need  to  consult  them,  go  to 
it  for  that  purpose  only.  As  soon  as  you  have  obtained 
the  paper  or  book  that  you  desire,  or  have  read  anything 
that  you  intend  to  read,  it  is  well  to  keep  far  enough  away 
from  the  desk  so  that  you  cannot  touch  it. 

The  speaker's  place  on  the  platform   depends  much 
upon  the  physical  surroundings.     Ordinarily  he  should 

see  that  he  has  room  enough  to  stand  com- 
p/atfom  *^^    fortably.    He  should  not  keep  at  the  back 

of  the  platform  because,  as  any  actor  will 
tell  you,  it  is  more  difficult  to  reach  the  audience  from 
"up  stage"  than  from  any  other  position.  It  is  equally 
bad  to  speak  continuously  from  the  extreme  front  edge 


DELIVERY  209 

of  the  platform.  It  tires  the  audience  to  see  you  continu- 
ally in  that  position,  and  at  first  they  may  be  afraid  that 
you  will  fall  off,  while  later  in  the  address  it  may  be  that 
they  will  be  afraid  that  you  will  not.  Under  ordinary 
conditions  a  place  upon  the  platform  reasonably  near  the 
front  of  the  stage  seems  to  be  desirable.  The  speaker, 
however,  should  not  keep  in  one  position.  It  is  not  natural 
for  any  person  to  stand  in  one  position  for  a  long  time, 
and  if  a  speaker  does  so,  it  is  noticeable  to  his  audience. 
This  does  not  mean  that  the  student  should  pace  up  and 
down  like  a  caged  tiger,  but  it  docs  mean  that  he  should 
rest  himself  and  his  audience  by  changing  his  position 
from  time  to  time  in  a  natural  manner.  If  a  speaker  begins 
upon  the  right-hand  side  of  a  reading  desk,  he  may  well 
during  the  dehvery  of  his  address  find  himself  upon  the  left- 
hand  side,  and  then,  before  its  close,  back  in  his  original 
position.  These  movements  should  not  be  made  artifi- 
cially or  according  to  a  definite  plan,  because  in  that  case 
they  will  be  noticeable.  If,  however,  a  speaker  has  occa- 
sion to  take  a  book  from  the  desk  and  read  an  extract  to 
his  audience,  it  would  not  be  unnatural,  when  he  places 
the  book  upon  the  desk,  for  him  to  step  over  to  the  other 
side  and  speak  for  a  while  from  that  position.  If  the  au- 
dience is  a  large  one,  he  may  have  an  angle  of  ninety  de- 
grees from  any  part  of  which  he  can  speak  and  still  be 
facing  his  audience.  His  face  and  body  can  be  turned  to 
the  right  side  of  the  room  for  a  time,  and  then  to  the  left, 
and  as  long  as  these  positions  are  assumed  naturally,  they 
will  be  of  advantage  both  to  the  speaker  and  to  his  au- 
dience. 

Probably  no  matter  troubles  the  instructor  in   oral 
English  as  much  as  that  of  gesture.    Whatever  he  recom- 


210  PRACTICE 

mends,  there  seems  to  be  a  pitfall  awaiting  the  student 

who  is  practicing  public  speaking.     At  one  extreme  we 

find  the  public  speaker  who  pays  no  atten- 

difficulties  *^°^  ^^  ^^®  preparation  of  gestures,  but  be- 
lieves that  he  will  naturally  use  appropriate 
gestures  when  he  feels  the  necessity  of  them.  If  the  public 
speaker  would  use  a  natural  gesture,  there  would  be  no 
difficulty  in  following  this  advice.  The  trouble  is  that 
nearly  everyone  will  use  a  gesture  that  appears  unnatural 
and  frequently  grotesque.  Left  to  themselves  speakers 
will  saw  the  air  with  their  hands,  pound  the  desk,  rise  on 
their  toes,  and  shake  their  fists  at  the  audience,  all  under 
the  impression  that  they  are  making  natural  and  appro- 
priate gestures  to  emphasize  or  interpret  their  remarks. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  a  speaker  attempts  to  prepare  a 
gesture  beforehand,  the  chances  are  that  he  will  construct 
an  artificially  correct  movement  of  the  hands  or  body 
which  from  its  very  artificiaUty  is  unnatural  and  dis- 
pleasing. We  have  all  laughed  at  the  public  speaker 
whose  platform  gymnastics,  of  which  he  was  hardly  con- 
scious, were  amusing  instead  of  being  forceful,  and  we 
have  laughed  no  less  heartily  at  the  product  of  the  elocu- 
tion school  who  moved  his  arms  and  wiggled  his  fingers 
in  so-called  lines  of  beauty.  Both  are  wrong,  and  wrong 
because  while  we  are  laughing  at  the  gesture,  we  are  not 
thinking  of  what  the  man  is  saying.  What  then  shall  we 
do?  Experience  seems  to  teach  that  of  the  two  extremes 
it  is  better  to  have  too  few  gestures,  or  none  at  all,  than 
too  many  or  too  elaborate.  Of  course  the  fundamental 
fact  is  that  the  movements  of  the  hands  and  arms  can  be 
rightly  used  to  aid  the  voice  in  conveying  impressions  to 
the  minds  of  others,  but  while  this  is  true,  it  is  also  a  fact 


DELIVERY  211 

that  in  the  actual  practice  of  public  speaking  we  find  the 
movements  of  the  hands  and  arms  detracting  from  the 
expression  of  thought  more  frequently  than  adding  to  it. 
Consequently  it  seems  best  for  the  student  to  restrain 
himself  and  use  gestures  sparingly,  if  at  all. 

It  is  generally  recognized  at  the  present  time  that  what 
is  called  the  gesture  of  imitation  or  illustration  should 
be  avoided  by  public  speakers.  As  has  -pj^g  gesture 
been  pointed  out,  the  public  speaker  is  not  of  illustration 
an  actor  and  it  is  not  his  business  to  portray 
a  scene  or  to  depict  a  character.  Years  ago  it  was  the 
practice  for  the  teachers  of  the  grade  schools  who  trained 
their  youthful  charges  to  "speak  pieces"  to  suggest  to 
them  gestures  which  were  purely  illustrative.  For  in- 
stance, if  heaven  was  mentioned,  the  eyes  and  the  hands 
must  be  turned  upward,  presumably  for  the  purpose  of 
pointing  out  the  exact  location.  If  a  phrase  like  "the 
whole  world"  or  "throughout  this  wide  continent"  oc- 
curred, the  youthful  orator  spread  his  diminutive  arms 
as  far  apart  as  possible  in  order  to  illustrate  such  a  wide 
expanse.  If  anybody  in  the  piece  that  was  being  de- 
claimed bowed  his  head,  the  head  was  bowed.  If  the  knee 
was  bent  in  the  piece,  it  was  bent  on  the  platform.  All 
this  was  done  artificially,  and  the  invariable  effect  was 
that  the  audience,  every  time  they  saw  a  gesture,  paid  no 
attention  to  the  words  that  accompanied  it.  In  other 
words,  it  served  to  distract  the  attention  from  the  mes- 
sage to  be  dehvered.  It  may  be  laid  down  as  a  rule 
that  in  pubUc  speaking  the  illustrative  or  imitative  ges- 
ture should  almost  never  be  employed. 

It  also  seems  to  be  pretty  evident  that  a  constrained 
gesture  does  not  help  out  the  speaker.    The  speaker  who 


212  PRACTICE 

keeps  his  elbows  glued  to  his  sides  and  gestures  frequently 
with  the  forearms  only,  inevitably  distracts  our  attention 
The  con-  from  what  he  is  saying  by  the  awkward- 

strained  ness  of  what  he  is  doing.    Gestures  of  the 

ges  ure  arms  should  ordinarily  be  made  with  the 

whole  arm  to  avoid  awkwardness.  It  is  rarely  in  actual 
affairs  of  hfe  that  we  find  ourselves  using  the  forearm  and 
wrist  only.  There  would  seem,  therefore,  to  be  no  reason 
why  we  should  do  so  when  we  are  upon  the  platform.  The 
advice,  however,  that  every  gesture  "should  begin  at 
the  shoulder  and  flow  gracefully  down  the  arm  to  the 
finger  tips"  is  apt  to  produce  an  effeminate  performance 
that  is  no  less  awkward  than  the  other  extreme. 

The  beginner  in  public  speaking  will  do  well  to  avoid 
all  gestures  except  gestures  of  emphasis,  and  in  using 
gestures  of  emphasis  he  should  remember 
of  emoha^is  ^^^^  ^^^  more  a  gesture  is  used  the  less  em- 
phatic it  becomes.  A  preacher,  when  deeply 
i  moved,  may  strike  his  pulpit  a  resounding  blow  with  his 
fist.  If  he  does  that  once  during  a  sermon,  it  will  probably 
give  an  additional  force  to  the  thought  that  he  is  express- 
ing at  the  time.  If  he  does  it  twenty  times,  he  will  de- 
generate into  a  mere  pulpit  pounder,  and  people  will  pay 
no  attention  to  what  he  does  except  to  be  irritated  at  the 
constant  physical  interruption  of  their  thoughts.  As  a 
final  word  on  the  subject  of  gesture  it  may  be  said  that 
if  we  cannot  follow  Josh  Billings'  famous  advice  to  those 
about  to  marry,  which  he  formed  in  the  single  word 
"Don't,"  we  can  at  least  lay  down  a  rule  which  approaches 
it.  Don't  gesture  in  delivering  a  public  address  unless 
you  know  why  you  are  doing  it  and  are  sure  you  are  doing 
it  right. 


DELIVERY  213 

Teachers  are  continually  urging  their  pupils  in  this 

matter  of  delivery  to  be  natural,  and  the  poor  pupil  may 

well  reply,  "When  I  attempt  to  be  natural, 

,  „  j^x    J.  T  }}     Tj  c    4-        Mannerisms 

you  tell  me  that  I  am  wrong.       Untortu-    of  action 

nately  this  is  only  too  true.  Men  form  habits 
quickly,  and  when  they  are  formed,  they  lead  to  action 
which  in  itself  is  unnatural  and  conspicuous  although  the 
person  performing  the  act  does  not  realize  it.  A  certain 
speaker  of  considerable  prominence  frequently  stands 
before  his  audience  with  his  hands  clasped  in  front  of 
him  while  he  twirls  his  thumbs  rapidly,  first  in  one  direc- 
tion and  then  in  another.  Now  it  is  safe  to  say  that  the 
first  time  any  man  puts  his  fingers  together  and  twirls 
his  thumbs  around  each  other,  it  is  the  result  of  conscious 
effort  and  is  not  a  natural  performance.  Such  an  unusual 
motion  must  be  in  every  man  at  first  the  result  of  a  cer- 
tain mental  concentration  upon  the  action  itself.  As  time 
goes  on  the  habit  becomes  fixed  and  the  man  does  it  un- 
consciously. When  speaking  to  an  audience,  he  does  not 
reaUze  what  he  is  doing,  and  we  may  say  it  is  a  "natural  " 
thing  for  him  to  do.  Nevertheless,  such  a  motion  of  the 
hands  is  imnatural  in  ordinary  men,  and  invariably  at- 
tracts the  attention  of  the  audience.  In  so  far  as  the 
people  whom  this  speaker  addresses  are  thinking  of  his 
twirling  thumbs,  they  are  not  thinking  of  the  message 
which  he  is  delivering,  and  his  action  has  distracted  atten- 
tion from  his  thought.  Consequently  a  speaker  should 
watch  himself  to  see  that  he  does  not  fall  into  mannerisms 
which,  although  natural  to  him,  are  unnatural  in  them- 
selves. It  is  probable  that  no  one  can  be  entirely  free 
from  mannerisms.  Even  the  best  speakers  have  habits 
which  they  unconsciously  display   upon   the  platform, 


214  PRACTICE 

but  beginners  in  public  speaking  should  remember  that 
the  best  speakers  succeed  not  because  of  these  habits,  but 
in  spite  of  them.  The  ideal  public  speaker  is  undoubtedly 
the  man  who  satisfies  the  eyes  and  ears  of  his  audience 
without  distracting  their  minds  from  his  train  of  thought. 
Unfortunately  mannerisms  do  not  confine  themselves 
to  any  part  of  a  man's  physical  being,  and  serious  as  any 
mannerism   is   to   a   public   speaker,   most 

Mannensms  gg^JQ^g  g^^^  ^q  ^^  ^^l^ose  which  affect  his 
of  voice 

voice.     The  voice  is  his  main  medium  of 

communication  of  thought,  and  if  the  mere  tones  attract 
attention  to  themselves,  a  pubHc  speaker  has  much  to 
contend  with.  It  is  true  that  the  voices  of  human  beings 
are  not  aU  ahke,  but  it  is  also  true  that  they  need  not  vary 
as  much  as  they  do.  While  one  man's  voice  may  be  pitched 
high  and  another  low,  no  man  need  have  a  squeaky  voice 
and  no  man  need  have  a  gruff  one.  It  is  utterly  beyond 
our  province  to  attempt  to  enter  upon  the  very  broad  sub- 
ject of  voice  cultivation,  but  the  pubUc  speaker  can  cor- 
rect defects  in  speaking  with  just  as  much  positiveness  as 
can  the  singer.  Some  have  naturally  musical  voices  and 
can  produce  agreeable  sounds  with  Httle  effort,  while 
others  are  not  so  gifted,  but  no  person  need  speak  through 
his  nose  or  growl  hke  a  bear  if  he  is  willing  to  be  taught 
and  to  practice  the  results  of  his  teaching. 

There  are  defects  in  speech,  however,  which  are  not 
physical,  but  mental.     That  the  pubHc  speaker  should 

be  grammatical  goes  without  saying.     He 
?^^*^  should  also  emphasize  his  words  properly, 

enunciate    them    clearly,    and    pronounce 
them  correctly. 
The  matter  of  emphasis  is  one  in  which  the  speaker 


DELIVERY  215 

will  never  be  perfect.  Experience  in  public  speaking 
means  growth  in  power  of  expression,  and  the  greater 
part  of  that  growth  seems  to  be  in  a  proper  ^  ,  . 
appreciation  of  the  matter  of  emphasis. 
Some  things,  however,  the  veriest  beginner  must  realize. 
Emphasis  is  not  always  produced  by  increase  in  tone 
although  that  seems  to  be  the  impression  that  too  fre- 
quently prevails.  We  have  all  of  us  seen  the  speaker 
who,  as  he  warmed  up  to  his  subject,  shouted  louder  and 
louder  until  at  the  end  he  was  producing  an  unmusical 
din  from  which  thought  had  long  since  fled.  Emphasis 
may  be  produced  as  well  by  lowering  the  voice  as  by 
raising  it,  and  yet  we  do  not  like  the  speaker  who,  when 
he  wishes  to  be  emphatic,  comes  forward  to  the  extreme 
edge  of  the  platform  and  hisses  his  emphatic  words  at  us 
as  if  they  were  secrets.  Emphasis  may  be  produced  most 
effectively  at  times  by  the  use  of  what  has  been  called  the 
rhetorical  pause.  Words  as  we  say  them  are  separated 
by  short  momentary  pauses  which  in  our  ordinary  speech 
are  all  approximately  the  same.  If  before  any  word  we 
lengthen  the  pause,  we  unmediately  emphasize  the  word 
and  the  emphasis  is  increased  with  the  length  of  the  pause. 
In  fact,  the  general  rule  seems  to  be  that  any  variation 
from  our  ordinary  manner  of  speaking,  whether  in  tone, 
cadence,  or  time,  will  direct  attention  to  the  words  where 
it  occurs,  and  thus  serve  to  emphasize  them.  If  this  is 
practiced  within  proper  limits,  the  effect  is  good  and  the 
transmission  of  the  thought  is  aided.  Carried  to  an  ex- 
treme in  any  particular  it  becomes  a  mannerism  and  de- 
feats its  own  purpose. 

The  matter  of  enunciation  is  one  in  which  practically 
every  student  in  our  schools  and  colleges  needs  careful 


216  PRACTICE 

attention  and  drill.     The  student  who  enunciates  clearly 

at  the  beginning  of  his  course  of  public  speaking  does 

„        .  ^.         not  seem  to  exist.     It  is  true  that  there 
Enunciation 

is  an  artificial  over-enunciation  in  which 
the  speaker  tries  to  sound  every  letter  irrespective  of 
whether  the  letter  should  be  sounded  or  not,  and  unfor- 
tunately some  teachers  of  English  seem  to  think  that  this 
is  the  acme  of  good  form.  The  average  student,  how- 
ever, need  be  in  no  fear  of  attaining  such  an  over-ripe 
style  of  speaking.  At  first  students  are  apt  to  be  a  little 
indignant  at  any  criticism  of  their  enimciation,  especially 
if  they  come  from  families  where  higher  education  has 
been  the  rule  for  generations;  and  yet  experience  has 
taught  us  that  it  does  not  seem  to  make  much  difference 
whether  the  speaker  was  born  in  the  shadows  of  Beacon 
Hill  or  of  the  Blue  Ridge.  Instruction  in  this  matter 
must  be  largely  personal,  but  every  student  may  well  ask 
himself  whether  he  says  "being"  and  "doing"  or  "bein"' 
and  "doin'/'  "government"  or  " gover'ment,"  "gentle- 
men" or  "gen'lemen,"  "regular"  or  "reg'lar."  If  he  finds 
after  impartial  consideration  that  he  offends  in  any  of 
these  particulars,  he  can  with  profit  submit  himself  to  com- 
petent instruction  and  learn  to  enunciate  clearly.  As  a 
physical  aid  to  this  you  should  remember  always  that  the 
flow  of  the  voice  should  never  be  obstructed  when  you 
are  speaking.  If  a  man  speaking  in  an  ordinary  tone  of 
voice  were  revolved  slowly  upon  a  movable  platform, 
there  would  be  a  portion  of  his  audience  which  would 
hear  clearly  what  he  was  saying  when  he  was  facing 
them,  less  distinctly  when  he  was  facing  to  one  side  or 
the  other,  and  no  intelhgible  words  when  his  back  was 
to  them.    The  rule  for  the  pubUc  speaker  is  the  same 


DELIVERY  217 

as  for  the  actor, — always  face  the  front  when  you 
are  speaking.  There  may  be  exceptions  to  this  rule 
in  the  case  of  the  actor  who  occasionally  finds  himself 
placed  in  a  position  where  it  is  impossible  for  him  to 
suit  the  action  to  the  word  while  facing  the  audience, 
but  it  is  safe  to  say  that  this  difficulty  will  not  confront 
the  public  speaker.  Again,  never  obstruct  the  voice  by 
having  anything  in  your  mouth  while  you  are  speaking. 
The  writer  has  a  vivid  mental  picture  of  an  interscholastic 
debater  who  tried  to  debate  and  chew  gum  at  the  same 
time.  Frequently  speakers  of  experience  will  be  seen 
to  rub  their  noses,  pull  their  moustaches,  or  even  place 
their  fingers  against  their  hps.  These  are  mannerisms  and 
objectionable  for  that  reason,  but  they  are  doubly  objec- 
tionable because  they  interfere  with  the  proper  flow  of 
the  voice. 

Emphasis  and  enunciation  are  largely  matters  of  habit. 
Pronunciation   is   partly   habit   and    partly   knowledge. 

Strange  as  it  may  seem,  teachers  of  EngUsh    ^ 

^    ,  -^  '     .  ,  ^  Pronuncia- 

frequently  pay  more  attention  to  the  pronun-    ^q^ 

ciation  of  unusual  words  than  of  the  more 
conamon  ones.  It  is  interesting  doubtless  to  know  that "  ca- 
nine" is  accented  on  the  second  syllable,  according  to  the 
best  authorities,  but  no  one  in  your  audience  is  going  to 
pay  much  attention  if  you  say  "caynine,"  and  that  sort  of 
perfection,  while  perhaps  desirable,  is  not  absolutely  neces- 
sary. We  all  of  us  doubtless  pray  to  be  delivered  from 
spending  time  in  those  families  where  the  constant  topic  of 
conversation  is  the  pronunciation  of  unusual  words  with 
frequent  appeals  to  the  family  dictionary  as  authority.  The 
writer  suffered  for  years  from  the  habit  of  mispronouncing 
a  certain  word.    Every  time  the  offence  was  committed, 


218  PRACTICE 

it  was  impressed  upon  the  mind  and  a  certain  amount  of 
chagrin  ensued.  Finally  at  a  convention  of  men  of  more 
than  ordinary  education  a  statesman  of  national  impor- 
tance who  was  noted  for  his  erudition  and  two  professors 
from  a  prominent  eastern  university  pronounced  or  mis- 
pronounced the  word  in  the  same  way.  The  resulting 
mental  peace  has  been  refreshing.  Least  of  all  need  we 
worry  about  the  mispronunciation  of  unusual  proper 
names.  If  a  speaker  is  going  to  use  the  name  of  a  person 
or  place,  he  should  familiarize  himself  with  it,  but  even  if 
he  should  make  a  mistake,  it  is  of  little  importance  when 
compared  with  the  countless  mispronunciations  which 
we  all  know  are  wrong,  but  do  not  realize  that  we  are 
making.  A  school  teacher  who  scolded  one  of  her  youthful 
charges  because  he  insisted  upon  saying  "paytent"  in  the 
next  breath  told  him  to  get  her  a  box  of  chalk  from  the 
"cluzzet."  Doubtless  if  she  had  had  an  opportunity, 
she  would  have  said  "wuz"  and  "becuz"  instead  of 
"was"  and  "because."  But  the  reader  says,  "Surely 
students  in  our  colleges  do  not  commit  such  mistakes?" 
It  is  perhaps  no  exaggeration  to  say  that  twenty-five  if 
not  fifty  per  cent  of  the  students  in  the  colleges  and 
universities  of  America  pronounce  the  word  "was"  as  if 
it  were  spelt  "wuz."  Of  other  common  mispronuncia- 
tions the  percentage  is  undoubtedly  much  larger.  Stu- 
dents will  go  to  the  theatre  and  smile  when  the  local 
politician  as  portrayed  on  the  stage  speaks  about  his  "con- 
stitooents,"  but  nine-tenths  of  them  in  the  class  room 
talk  about  the  " constitootion "  and  "institoot"  and  "noo" 
instead  of  giving  the  correct  sound  to  "u"  in  these  words. 
Here  again  the  matter  is  largely  one  of  personal  instruc- 
tion, but  the  fact  for  the  beginner  in  public  speaking  to 


DELIVERY  219 

consider  is  that  he  is  undoubtedly  mispronouncing  many 
of  the  most  common  words  that  he  uses.  Occasionally 
when  we  talk  of  this  matter  of  pronunciation  somebody 
says,  "Oh,  I  guess  the  audience  will  understand  me  all 
right."  That  is  true  without  doubt,  and  if  the  audience 
was  fairly  intelligent,  it  might  understand  you  if  you  had 
to  augment  your  vocal  endeavors  by  the  sign  language 
in  order  to  convey  your  thoughts.  The  question  is  not 
whether  you  will  be  understood.  The  question  is  whether 
the  audience  will  enjoy  Ustening  to  you,  and  there  are 
few  audiences  in  a  civilized  community  that  do  not  ap- 
preciate a  speaker  who  uses  good  English  even  if  they 
do  not  know  how  to  use  good  English  themselves. 

But  one  may  go  on  almost  without  limitation  in  the 
advice  that  may  be  given  as  to  the  delivery  of  speeches. 
After  all,  as  has  been  said,  it  is  largely  a 
matter  that  requires  personal  instruction,  yisual^^^ds 
It  is  perhaps  worth  while,  however,  to  call 
attention  before  closing  this  chapter  to  the  use  of  outside 
aids  to  public  speaking.  Frequently,  especially  in  scien- 
tific lectures,  the  speaker  can  convey  the  thought  to  the 
eye  of  his  audience  by  a  diagram  or  chart  with  compara- 
tive ease  when  it  would  be  difficult  and  perhaps  impos- 
sible to  make  them  understand  as  well  if  he  reUed  upon 
mere  words.  The  use  of  charts,  maps  and  diagrams, 
therefore,  plays  an  important  part  in  public  speaking.  If 
they  are  to  be  used,  they  should  be  large  enough  to  be  seen 
by  all  of  the  audience.  To  hold  up  a  small  photograph 
and  inform  the  audience  that  you  are  sorry  that  only  those 
in  the  front  row  can  see  it,  and  then  talk  about  it  for  five 
minutes,  seems  to  be  a  waste  of  time.  A  chart  or  diagram 
which  is  so  confused  that,  although  the  audience  can  see 


220  PRACTICE 

it,  they  cannot  understand  it,  would  seem  to  be  open  to 
the  same  objection.  As  a  general  thing  a  pubhc  speaker 
should  not  use  too  many  aids  of  this  kind.  When  he 
does,  they  should  be  self-explanatory  if  possible,  and  if 
he  has  to  explain  them,  he  should  be  careful,  as  has  been 
said,  to  speak  to  the  audience  and  not  with  his  back  to 
it.  In  interscholastic  and  intercollegiate  debates  it  would 
seem  to  be  best  not  to  allow  the  use  of  any  visual  argu- 
ment. Debating  is,  after  all,  practice  in  the  art  of  appeal- 
ing to  the  mind  by  speech.  If  that  is  to  be  emphasized, 
it  is  best  to  draw  the  line  at  the  beginning  and  say  that 
no  visual  aid  shall  be  used.  If  one  chart  is  to  be  used, 
why  not  use  a  dozen,  and  if  the  matter  was  carried  to 
extremes,  we  might  find  our  intercollegiate  debates  illus- 
trated with  the  stereopticon,  and  rivaUing  even  the 
"movies."  The  better  rule  would  seem  to  be  to  eliminate 
once  and  for  all  anything  of  the  sort. 

Occasionally  a  speaker  wishes  to  incorporate  in  his 

speech  a  more  or  less  lengthy  passage  from  the  speech 

of  some  other  person  or  from  some  book  or 

1^  tin  ^  magazine.  A  great  many  public  speakers 
who  speak  well  do  not  know  how  to  read. 
Only  too  frequently  such  a  one  takes  the  book  from  which 
he  is  to  read,  bends  his  head,  and  with  his  mouth  a  com- 
paratively short  distance  from  the  book  mumbles  the 
passage  upon  which  he  is  depending.  If  you  desire  to 
read  something,  it  is  because  it  expresses  the  thought 
better  than  you  can  express  it  yourself,  or  because  it  is 
by  some  authority  of  great  weight.  It  is,  in  either  case, 
an  important  part  of  your  speech.  If  the  speech  is  care- 
fully prepared,  the  passage,  although  ostensibly  read  to 
the  audience,  should  really  be  recited  to  them;  that  is  to 


DELIVERY  221 

say,  the  speaker  should  know  it  without  reference  to  the 
book.  When  this  is  true,  he  talks  directly  to  his  audience 
and  is  not  bound  constantly  to  refer  to  the  pages  before 
him. 

After  all  is  said  and  done  the  student  of  pubhc  speaking 
should  remember  that  it  is  the  message  which  is  impor- 
tant. Pubhc  speaking  of  every  kind,  whether    „ 

^  *=  .  Summary 

argument  or  lecture,  sermon  or  plea,  is  an 

endeavor  to  convey  thought.  It  is  the  thought  and  not 
the  means  of  conveyance  that  we  seek.  The  final  criterion 
by  which  you  should  judge  your  efforts  is  the  effect  pro- 
duced upon  the  minds  of  the  people  who  are  receiving  the 
thought.  If  what  you  are  saying  and  doing  serves  to  speed 
the  message  on  its  way,  it  is  good.  If  it  retards  it,  it  is 
bad.    There  would  seem  to  be  no  other  basis  of  judgment. 


CHAPTER  XV 

DEBATING  ^ 

"How  about  the  moral  side?" 

This  question  was  asked  the  writer  by  the  dean  of  a 

great  university  who  was  himself  a  friend 
debiting  °        ^^  debating.     Starthng  as  the  thought  may 

be,  it  must  be  confessed  that  there  is  a 
danger  to  the  morals  of  the  student  community  in  inter- 
collegiate debating.  It  is  not  true  that  this  is  a  great 
danger  or  that  it  constitutes  a  sufficient  reason  for  giv- 
ing up  what  may  perhaps  be  called  the  undergraduates' 
most  intellectual  sport.  If  we  recognize  the  existence  of 
the  evil,  it  is  easily  disposed  of,  but  if  we  deny  that  there 
is  any  possible  immorahty  in  debating,  we  are  more  than 
likely  to  be  surprised  at  some  things  which  will  develop 
in  even  the  best  governed  institutions  of  learning.  The 
danger  of  debating  is  that  if  it  is  wrongly  conducted  it 
may  encourage  cheapness,  trickery,  and  deceit, — qualities 
which  need  no  encouragement  in  the  human  race.  But 
these  quahties  merely  find  their  expression  in  the  speech 
of  men;  they  are  not  an  inherent  part  of  it.  For  a  uni- 
versity to  restrict  or  discourage  debating  because  men  will 
use  their  tongues  to  tell  Ues  is  about  as  sensible  as  for  them 
to  discourage  reUgion  because  some  men  use  their  religion 
as  a  cloak  to  cover  their  sins.  On  the  contrary,  it  seems 
that  it  should  be  the  duty  of  every  school  and  university 

^  This  chapter  is  written  by  Mr.  Stone,  not  in  collaboration. 
222 


DEBATING  223 

to  encourage  debating  of  the  right  sort  in  order  that  men 
may  be  taught  the  futiUty  of  argument  of  the  wrong 
sort. 

The  danger  of  mendacity  in  debating  seems  to  threaten 
in  two  ways,  one  obvious,  and  the  other  more  subtle. 
The  use  of  a  he  is  always  evident  at  the  first  i^gndacitsr 
glance.  The  disadvantages,  although  ab- 
solutely conclusive,  are  frequently  not  as  clear.  If  a  boy 
wishes  to  escape  a  whipping  for  a  certain  act,  he  denies 
that  he  has  done  it.  If  he  is  believed,  he  escapes  the 
whipping.  So  in  a  debate,  if  a  student  in  his  argument 
is  in  a  bad  corner,  the  advantage  of  lying  out  of  it  is  at 
once  apparent.  He  may  win  the  debate.  If  he  needs  sta- 
tistics to  prove  his  case  and  there  are  none,  the  advantage 
of  manufacturing  them  is  obvious.  If  they  are  not  de- 
tected for  an  hour  or  more  they  may  bring  success  to  his 
side.  If  he  can  misquote  a  statement  of  his  opponent  and 
not  get  caught,  he  may  be  able  to  score  a  telling  point  in 
rebuttal.  The  temptation  to  do  this  exists  and  always  will 
exist.  It  will  bring  temporary  success  sometimes  but  it 
is  not  common,  is  not  encouraged  any  more  among  under- 
graduates in  our  colleges  and  universities  than  elsewhere 
in  the  world,  and  speedily  brings  its  own  punishment. 
The  student  body  should  and  does  look  upon  the  man 
who  lies  in  a  debate  as  they  look  upon  a  football  player 
who  would  bite  his  opponent  in  a  scrimmage,  or  a  base- 
ball player  who  would  go  out  of  his  way  to  spike  the  first 
baseman.  It  goes  without  saying  that  the  only  foundation 
for  argument,  no  matter  where  it  takes  place  is  the  truth, 
and  the  problem  of  finding  out  what  is  the  truth  is  com- 
plex enough  to  engage  a  man's  whole  time  without  his 
spending  any  of  it  in  dealing  with  things  which  are  ob- 


224  PRACTICE 

viously  not  the  truth.     The  individuality  of  the  men 

who  are  in  charge  of  debating  in  any  school  or  college  is 

a  sufficient  guarantee  of  its  honesty.    An  honest  man  will 

not  be  a  trickster  and  will  not  allow  others  to  be  tricksters 

if  it  is  within  his  power  to  prevent  it. 

The  other  danger  of  debating  is  much  more  subtle.    It 

presents  to  us  for  consideration  the  old  question  as  to 

whether  a  man  can  argue  against  his  beHefs. 

Arguing  rpj^     concrete   case  is   presented  about  in 

against  beliei  ^ 

this  way.    Is  it  advisable  to  ask  a  boy  who 

has  a  strong  belief  in  free  trade  to  debate  for  the  honor 
of  his  college  or  school  in  favor  of  the  poUcy  of  protection? 
Many  critics  have  seen  the  danger  and  have  pointed  it 
out.  To  quote  ex-President  Roosevelt,  "What  we  need 
is  to  turn  out  of  our  colleges  young  men  with  ardent  con- 
victions on  the  side  of  right,  not  young  men  who  can 
make  a  good  argument  for  either  right  or  wrong  as  their 
interest  bids  them."  The  eminent  critic's  statement  is 
one  of  those  things  that  is  so  obvious  that  it  needs  no 
comment.  The  difficulty  with  giving  up  debating  because 
young  men  may  acquire  facility  in  arguments  which  they 
may  use  for  wrong  purposes,  is  at  once  apparent.  If  the 
universities  are  to  set  up  as  their  standard  that  their 
students  shall  excel  only  in  those  arts  which  cannot  be 
misused,  they  should  have  closed  their  gates  centuries 
ago.  If  you  teach  a  man  to  write  good  EngHsh,  and  teach 
him  nothing  else,  he  may  become  a  Wordsworth  or  an 
Oscar  Wilde;  and  in  the  same  way,  if  you  teach  him  to 
speak  good  English,  he  may  use  his  newly  acquired  art 
either  to  convince  a  Senate  Or  to  defend  a  rogue.  Still, 
this  is  not  the  real  answer  to  the  critics  of  debating,  be- 
cause the  real  answer  is  not  whether  the  practice  of  de- 


DEBATING  225 

bating  may  result  in  the  misuse  of  argument  but  whether 
it  tends  to  encourage  it. 

The  solution,  however,  is  simple  in  theory  and  should 
be  simple  in  application.  A  student  should  be  neither 
encouraged  nor  allowed  to  argue  for  that  ^j^^  solution 
which  he  believes  is  wrong,  and  a  conscien- 
tious student  or  a  conscientious  man  will  not,  and  cannot, 
successfully  argue  for  principles  in  which  he  does  not 
believe.  The  great  trouble  of  those  who  thus  criticize 
debating  is  that  they  do  not  give  sufficient  attention  to 
the  usual  subjects  that  are  debated.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  students  in  schools  and  colleges  do  not  have  settled 
beliefs  upon  many  subjects.  To  them  the  immigration 
question,  the  tariff,  woman  suffrage,  the  increase  of  the 
navy,  and  the  like,  are  merely  topics  for  investigation, 
upon  which  they  have  at  most  only  prejudices.  And 
while  we  must  admit  that  we  do  not  want  a  student  to 
argue  against  his  beliefs,  we  cannot  see  but  that  it  would 
be  advantageous  not  only  for  the  students  in  our  univer- 
sities, but  for  more  mature  men,  to  prepare  themselves 
to  argue  either  side  of  such  a  complicated  matter  of  na- 
tional importance  as  the  question  of  the  restriction  of 
immigration.  We  are  in  danger  in  our  colleges  and  uni- 
versities of  committing  a  far  graver  fault  than  turning 
out  young  men  who  can  make  a  good  argument  for  either 
right  or  wrong.  Young  men  who  guess  at  the  right  and 
wrong  without  investigation  and  without  discussion,  and 
then  maintain  it  in  face  of  everything,  are  suffering  morally 
fully  as  much  as  those  who  take  more  time,  investigate 
more  thoroughly,  and  form  their  opinion  with  more  dis- 
crimination. There  is  no  better  method  of  finding  out 
whether  your  preconceived  notions  are  true  or  not  than 


226  PRACTICE 

to  try  to  construct  a  good  argument  against  them,  and  we 
believe  that  the  advantages  of  investigation,  of  friendly- 
discussion,  of  balancing  of  evidence,  upon  questions,  which 
although  of  prime  importance  are  after  all  generally  mat- 
ters more  of  governmental  expediency  than  of  morals, 
outweigh  many  times  the  possible  disadvantages.  The 
rule,  therefore,  in  debating  should  be  for  each  individual 
never  to  debate  against  his  settled  moral  convictions 
but  to  examine  his  mind  carefully  to  find  out  how  many 
settled  moral  convictions  he  has  upon  such  subjects  as 
are  ordinarily  under  discussion  by  the  general  public. 

But  when  everything  has  been  said  about  debating,  the 
fact  remams  that  the  students  of  American  schools  and 
Debating   of  universities  have,  during  the  last  decade  and 

value  as  con-  ^  ^islU,  taken  a  subject  which  has  its  proper 
Crete  expres-  .  .  ^    f 

sion  of  argu-   place  in  the  curriculum  and  made  a  game 

°^^°*  of  it.     It  is  true  that  the  game  is  fearfully 

and  wonderfully  made  and  has  surrounding  it  an  arti- 
ficiality which  makes  it  the  most  rigid  form  of  argumenta- 
tive discussion.  Nevertheless,  it  is  for  the  credit  of  the 
students  that  they  have  succeeded  in  removing  some  of 
the  academic  taint  from  one  of  the  arts.  Up  to  the  in- 
auguration of  debating  the  great  trouble  with  the  teach- 
ing of  argument  was  the  lack  of  any  decision  of  the  ques- 
tion. You  cannot  expect  students  to  be  wildly  interested 
in  any  argument  that  is  addressed  to  no  one,  begins 
nowhere  and  ends  in  the  same  place.  A  man  may  write 
narration  or  description  for  the  pleasure  he  has  in  pro- 
ducing his  work,  or  possibly  with  the  hope  that  it  may  be 
published;  he  may  write  poetry  and  bury  it  in  his  desk 
where  he  can  admire  it  only  by  stealth;  but  he  will  not 
argue  unless  he  has  an  opponent  and  unless  his  argument 


DEBATING  227 

may  be  of  some  purpose.  In  debating,  the  students,  for 
their  own  enjoyment,  have  artificially  created  opponents 
and  judges,  and  have  in  this  way  given  a  zest  to  the  teach- 
ing of  argument  that  it  never  could  have  acquired  in  any 
other  way.  Recognizing  the  dangers,  it  is  submitted  that 
they  are  no  more  than  the  dangers  that  attend  any  other 
college  activity,  and  that  debating  is  well  worth  encourage- 
ment as  an  intellectual  exercise  forming  part  of  the  gen- 
eral educational  scheme. 

As  there  are  no  set  rules  universally  applied  to  debating, 
it  is  a  httle  difficult  to  describe  in  detail  exactly  how  a 
debate  is  conducted.  The  number  of  par- 
ticipants, the  time  occupied,  the  order  of  ^  debate 
speakers,  the  method  of  decision,  and  other 
details  vary  in  the  different  schools  and  colleges.  In  a 
typical  intercollegiate  debate,  however,  there  are  three 
speakers  representing  each  college.  They  speak  alter- 
nately, beginning  with  the  affirmative.  Each  of  these 
principal  speeches,  as  they  are  called,  occupies  twelve 
minutes.  At  the  close  of  the  last  of  these  speeches, 
which  is  of  course  by  the  negative,  each  speaker  has 
five  minutes  more  in  what  is  called  rebuttal.  In  the 
rebuttal  the  negative  begins,  so  that  the  last  rebuttal 
speech  comes  from  the  affirmative,  the  affirmative  thus 
opening  and  closing  the  debate.  Three  judges  selected 
from  citizens  who  are  supposed  to  have  no  interest  in 
any  of  the  contestants  decide  which  side  has  won  the 
debate.  This  decision  is  sometimes  made  by  ballot  with- 
out consultation  and  sometimes  as  a  result  of  consultation. 
In  any  event,  the  judges  are  supposed  to  decide  upon  the 
merits  of  the  debaters  and  not  upon  their  own  views  as 
to  the  merits  of  the  question.    Debates  in  the  class  room 


228  PRACTICE 

generally  have  two  speakers  on  a  side,  the  length  of  time 
allowed  varying  according  to  the  amount  of  time  at  the 
instructor's  disposal.  Usually,  however,  the  participants 
are  required  to  speak  a  second  time  in  rebuttal  and  the 
time  allotted  approximates  as  closely  as  possible  to  the 
time  allowed  in  the  intercollegiate  contests.  In  class 
debates  the  decision  is  rendered  either  by  the  teacher 
who  criticizes  the  speeches  or  by  a  vote  of  the  class.  The 
time  limit  prescribed  for  the  speeches  in  all  debates  is 
generally  enforced  rigorously,  part  of  the  training  being 
that  a  man  shall  condense  his  speech  within  the  time 
given.  Usually  the  presiding  officer  signifies  that  a 
speaker's  time  is  nearly  completed  by  some  prearranged 
signal,  a  bell  or  a  stroke  of  the  gavel  one  or  two  minutes 
before  the  actual  expiration.  At  the  actual  expiration 
of  the  time,  another  signal  is  given  and  the  speaker  is 
required  to  terminate  his  speech.  In  the  interests  of 
finished  speaking,  it  is  generally  provided  that  at  the 
last  signal  the  speaker  may  bring  the  sentence  which  he 
is  then  speaking  to  an  appropriate  end,  but  he  is  usually 
warned  that  the  sentence  had  better  not  be  made  too  long. 
There  is  no  standard  set  of  rules.  In  some  instances 
every  contingency  is  provided  for  by  an  elaborate  agree- 
ment which  has  many  of  the  attributes  of  an 
a?e  debatinc  international  treaty.  In  others,  the  agree- 
ment is  less  formal.  The  intercollegiate  de- 
bating agreement  between  Harvard,  Yale,  and  Princeton, 
for  instance,  which  is  one  of  the  oldest  in  the  country, 
is  largely  a  matter  of  custom,  and  extends  from  year  to 
year.  It  is  not  expressed  in  any  written  document,  and 
yet  its  provisions  are  fairly  well  understood  by  the  par- 
ticipants.   Perhaps  a  majority  of  the  intercollegiate  de- 


DEBATING  229 

bates  are  what  is  known  as  dual  contests,  in  which  only 
two  colleges  take  part.  An  arrangement,  however,  that  is 
growing  in  favor  is  to  hold  what  is  known  as  a  triangular  de- 
bate. In  this  each  college  presents  two  teams,  one  at  home 
and  one  away  from  home,  which  debate  with  the  other 
two  colleges  in  the  league,  upon  the  same  night  and  upon 
the  same  question.  It  is  evident  that  this  means  that 
there  are  three  debates,  one  at  each  college  going  on  at  the 
same  time  upon  the  same  question.  Obviously,  any  one 
of  the  colleges  may  win  both  of  its  debates,  in  which  case 
it  is  the  undoubted  victor  for  that  year,  or,  each  college 
may  win  one,  which  means  that  there  is  a  tie.  The  ad- 
vantage of  the  triangular  scheme  is  that  it  satisfies  the 
undergraduate's  desire  for  an  even  contest  in  which  he 
may  win  a  definite  victory.  It  is  evident  that  any  ad- 
vantage in  wording  the  question  or  burden  of  proof  is 
obviated  as  each  college  must  both  affirm  and  deny  the 
proposition.  Allowing  for  error  in  the  decision  of  the 
judges,  which  is  possible  where  the  judgment  is  purely  a 
matter  of  opinion,  it  is  probable  that  this  gives  as  fair  a 
test  of  relative  debating  abiUty  as  can  be  devised.  The 
objection  to  this  system  is  one  that  the  undergraduate 
does  not  fully  appreciate.  The  preparation  of  a  triangular 
debate  requires  so  much  more  time  that  it  seems  to  some 
observers  that  the  quality  of  the  debating  is  not  as  good 
as  it  was  under  the  dual  system  where  each  team  had  an 
opportunity  to  perfect  itself  upon  one  side  of  the  ques- 
tion. 

One  of  the  most  difficult  tasks  in  arranging  a  debate  is 
the  selection  of  a  question.  Even  under  the  triangular 
system  it  is  advisable  that  the  question  should  be  evenly 
balanced.     It  is  also  necessary  for  any  debate  that  it 


230  PRACTICE 

should  be  worded  in  accordance  with  the  other  principles 
set  forth  in  the  second  chapter  of  this  book.     Inasmuch 

as  audiences  seem  to  be  necessary  as  an 
for^debate  °°  inspiration,  at  least,  for  the  debaters,  it  has 

been  found  expedient  that  the  question 
should  be  one  which  will  attract  general  interest  and 
should  be  one  also  which  is  not  too  intricate  or  too  highly 
specialized  for  general  understanding.  To  frame  a  ques- 
tion which  will  meet  all  these  requirements,  is  no  small 
task.  Some  of  the  books  published  upon  argumentation 
give  lists  of  questions  for  debates.  Few  of  them  would 
meet  the  tests  outlined  above  and  are  valuable  merely  as 
suggestions.  A  list  of  the  subjects  adopted  from  1892  to 
the  present  time  in  the  universities  of  Harvard,  Yale  and 
Princeton,  is  appended  as  suggestive  models,  some  not 
ver}'  good  it  must  be  admitted,  of  the  way  in  which  sub- 
jects may  be  framed.^ 

The  debating  coach  appeared  as  soon  as  intercollegiate 
debating  was  started.  Experience  has  shown  that  the 
Th         ch       criticism    and    judgment    of    some    person 

independent  of  the  debaters,  and  to  some 
extent,  at  any  rate,  in  authority  over  them,  is  of  great 
value  in  the  construction  of  a  debate.  Generally,  the  task 
falls  upon  that  instructor  in  the  college  who  has  charge 
of  the  work  in  oral  English.  In  at  least  one  institution,^ 
however,  a  faculty  regulation  forbids  any  officer  of  in- 
struction or  government  from  assisting  in  the  preparation 
of  an  intercollegiate  debate.  It  would  seem  that  the  only 
instructor  who  should  be  allowed  to  take  the  position  of 
coach  is  the  instructor  in  oral  English.  If  other  members 
of  the  faculty  are  prominent  in  coaching,  experience 
1  See  pages  249-253.  ^  Harvard  University. 


DEBATING  231 

shows  that  the  debates  may  take  on  some  of  the  charac- 
teristics of  a  contest  between  the  learned  faculties,  as 
expressed  through  the  mouths  of  their  pupils,  and  this 
seems  to  be  undesirable.  The  most  desirable  coach  is 
some  alumnus  of  the  college  who  has  special  quahfications 
for  the  position  and  who  takes  it  up  as  a  labor  of  love. 
He  has  the  advantage  over  the  instructor,  that  he  brings 
to  the  debate  a  mind  which  is  not  entirely  confined  in  its 
operations  to  academic  lines.  While  the  instructor  is 
generally  fresher  in  his  knowledge  of  the  subject  and  his 
knowledge  of  the  rules  of  presentation,  nevertheless, 
under  his  guidance  the  debates  are  apt  to  take  on  a  formal 
and  academic  nature.  They  bristle  with  terms  famihar, 
it  is  true,  to  the  readers  of  such  a  book  as  this,  but  for- 
tunately unknown  to  the  outside  world.  ''Burden  of 
proof,"  "main  issues,"  "refutation,"  "fallacy,"  "honor- 
able judges,"  "learned  opponent"  are  hurled  back  and 
forth  in  a  way  which  at  times  becomes  bewildering  to 
the  audience.  An  alumnus  of  the  university,  who  has 
been  away  long  enough  to  lose  a  little  of  the  academic 
polish,  will  probably  compel  his  charges  to  talk  in  or- 
dinary words  and  not  in  what  we  may  call  "debating 
English."  But  the  burden  falls  only  too  often  upon  ^  the 
poor  instructor  who,  although  he  cannot  escape,  is  fre- 
quently blamed  because  he  is  expected  to  prove  that  he 
is  academic  and  unacademic  at  the  same  time.  To  such 
an  unfortunate  we  can  only  say  that  he  must  reaUze 
that  the  audience  and  the  judges  can  be  assumed  not 
only  to  be  unfamiliar  with  the  technical  terms  em- 
ployed by  teachers  of  argument,  but  also  to  have  an  al- 
most supernatural  reverence  for  what  they  call  conmion 
sense. 


232  PRACTICE 

After  selecting  the  question  and  selecting  the  coach, 
and  what  is  still  more  difficult,  getting  the  coach  to  serve, 
the  task  of  choosing  the  speakers  is  com- 
Cho^mg  the  p^ratively  simple.  It  is  ordmarily  done  by- 
competition.  A  general  call  to  all  in  the 
University  is  issued  and  anyone  who  cares  to  come  is 
allowed  to  speak  on  either  side  of  the  question  for  five 
minutes.  Judges  composed  of  instructors  or  graduates 
of  the  University  should  be  able  to  pick  out  at  this  trial 
the  fifteen  or  twenty  men  who  have  some  chance  of  mak- 
ing the  team.  If  twenty  men  are  selected  at  the  first  trial, 
even  with  such  a  meagre  opportunity  of  showing  one's 
abihty  as  is  afforded  by  a  five  minutes'  speech,  we  may 
be  fairly  sure  that  that  number  will  include  the  three 
best  speakers  who  offer  themselves.  Upon  another  night, 
reasonably  soon  afterwards,  these  candidates  speak  for 
ten  minutes,  and  this  time  the  judges  should  have  but 
little  difficulty  in  finding  the  six  best  men.  These  are 
then  assigned  by  lot  to  a  debate  held  in  strict  conformity 
with  the  intercollegiate  rules  and  in  this  third  trial  the 
team  is  selected.  Where  the  triangular  system  is  adopted 
it  is  more  difficult  because  twelve  men  must  be  retained 
at  the  second  trial.  These  men  are  divided  by  lot  into 
four  teams  of  three  men  each.  Two  of  these  teams  can 
debate  the  question  upon  the  afternoon  of  some  day  and 
the  two  other  teams  in  the  evening.  If  the  same  judges 
attend,  while  they  will  be  somewhat  weary  at  the  end 
of  the  contest,  they  will  be  able  to  select  the  six  men  who 
will  compose  the  debating  team  and  three  other  men  who 
can  be  used  as  a  second  or  practice  team  from  time  to 
time.  Whatever  method  is  selected,  undergraduate  senti- 
ment demands  that  the  selection  shall  be  upon  a  com- 


DEBATING  233 

petitive  basis  in  which  everybody  has  a  fair  chance.  It 
seems  necessary,  moreover,  that  the  speakers  should  be 
tested  in  actual  debate.  Debating  is  not  a  contest  in 
oratory,  and  many  a  man  who  succeeds  in  presenting  a 
set  speech  to  the  satisfaction  of  his  admirers,  fails  utterly 
when  confronted  by  an  aggressive  opponent.  However 
the  team  is  selected  it  should  be  a  team  of  men  trained 
in  argument  and  not  merely  in  rhetoric  and  elocution. 

When  selected,  too  much  emphasis  cannot  be  placed 
upon  the  idea  that  it  is  a  team  that  has  been  chosen  and 
not  three  individual  speakers.  One  of  the 
most  interesting  and  instructive  features  team-work 
of  intercollegiate  debates  is  the  team-work 
that  is  displayed.  It  is  comparatively  easy  to  construct 
three  separate  speeches  which  do  not  conflict  with  one 
another,  but  a  good  debate  goes  further  and  consists  of 
one  extended  argument  delivered  by  three  men.  This, 
when  done  successfully,  invariably  challenges  the  admira- 
tion of  even  the  most  experienced  public  speakers  whose 
minds  are  more  mature  than  those  of  the  contestants.  It 
cannot  be  done,  however,  unless  every  man  is  wiUing  to 
subordinate  himself  to  the  furtherance  of  the  cause  for 
which  he  pleads.  The  topics  for  discussion  should  be 
divided  among  the  men  so  that  each  man  will  be  placed 
where  he  can  do  the  most  good.  All  material  that  is  ac- 
quired should  be  considered  the  property  of  the  team 
and  not  the  property  of  the  individual  who  discovers  it. 
Instances  of  sacrifice  on  the  athletic  field  among  our  college 
students  are  indeed  numerous  and  the  spirit  engendered 
is  praiseworthy,  but  I  doubt  if  the  athlete  suffers  any 
more  keenly  than  does  the  speaker  who  sees  his  pet  idea, 
the  product  of  his  own  brain^  turned  over  to  another  man 


234  PRACTICE 

who  after  all  can  never  appreciate  it  quite  as  much  as  he 
who  brought  it  forth. 

To  inculcate  this  spirit  of  unity  is  an  important  part  of 
the  work  of  the  coach.  He  is  the  adviser,  the  critic,  and 
The  coach  dictator  of  the  team.  He  should  be  careful 
not  one  of  to  realize,  however,  that  he  is  not  one  of 
the  debaters  ^^^^  debaters.  The  debate  should  not  be 
his,  even  in  part.  It  is  the  work  of  the  men  under  his 
direction,  not  his  work.  For  this  reason  the  coach  should 
carefully  abstain  from  looking  up  material,  arranging 
arguments,  and  above  all,  should  abstain  from  actually 
putting  ideas  into  words.  It  is  for  the  men  to  get  the 
evidence,  and  for  the  men  to  arrange  the  case,  and  for 
the  men  to  make  their  speeches.  The  coach's  whole  duty 
is  performed  when  he  criticizes,  corrects,  or,  at  the  most, 
suggests  methods  of  treatment.  A  speaker  will  always 
do  better  with  a  speech  that  is  his  own,  imperfect  as  it 
may  be,  than  with  a  speech  of  far  more  merit  written  by 
someone  else  and  put  into  his  mouth.  The  writer  was 
recently  a  judge  at  an  interscholastic  contest  where  it 
seemed  evident  that  one  of  the  teams  was  merely  repeat- 
ing learned  speeches  which  evidently  had  been  prepared 
by  older  people.  Inquiry  made  subsequent  to  the  deci- 
sion confirmed  this  suspicion.  The  other  team  had  been 
prepared  on  a  different  principle  and  in  an  immature  way 
were  discussing  the  proposition  to  the  best  of  their  abihty 
in  words  which  betrayed  their  immaturity.  There  was 
no  question  but  that  the  prepared  speeches  were  better 
Hterary  productions.  Yet  the  audience,  in  which  the 
friends  of  each  school  were  present  in  about  equal  num- 
bers, listened  with  interest  and  attention  to  the  boys 
who  were  speaking  their  own  thoughts,  while  during  the 


DEBATING .  235 

speeches  of  the  others  it  was  plain  to  see  that  the  thoughts 
of  the  hearers  were  wandering.  The  unanimous  decision 
of  the  judges  was  in  favor  of  the  more  immature  produc- 
tion and  seemed  to  meet  with  the  approbation  of  all 
concerned.  Debating  is  a  contest  in  which  mind  meets 
mind  and  the  minds  that  must  meet  are  those  that  are 
in  evidence  before  the  audience,  not  those  that  are  behind 
the  scenes.  As  the  debate  must  be  the  work  of  the  men 
who  are  to  deliver  it,  the  coach  should  take  special  care 
to  see  that  it  is  their  effort  and  that  he  neither  is  persuaded 
nor  persuades  himself  to  attempt  any  constructive  work. 

Moreover,  the  coach  will  find  plenty  to  do  without 
attempting  to  construct  the  debate  itself.    His  first  task 
is  the  selection  of  the  case,  as  it  is  called. 
As  we  have  seen  in  the  previous  chapters  ^^  ^^^  ^^^^ 
of  this  book  every  argument  should  be  the 
result  of  careful  analysis.    The  proposition  is  to  be  proved 
by  logical  steps,  not  by  the  haphazard  reiteration  of  even 
indisputable  facts.     The  selection  and  arrangement  of 
the  issues  which  are  to  be  presented,  make  up  the  cases  of 
the  respective  sides,  and  this  process  is,  as  we  have  seen, 
the  most  important  part  of  the  debate. 

It  is  easier  to  coach  an  affirmative  team  than  to  coach 
a  negative  one.    The  affirmative  case  is  generally  a  simpler 
case  than  the  negative.     The  affirmative 
also  has  the  advantage,  and  it  is  no  slight  ^-^^  ^^^^ 
advantage,  of  having  the  last  word.     The 
corresponding   advantage   of   the   negative   team   which 
should  counteract  this  seems  to  be  more  elusive,  and  stu- 
dents when  they  are  on  the  negative  do  not  seem  to  make 
the  most  of  the  fact  that  the  burden  of  proof  always  rests 
upon  their  opponents.     If  the  affirmative  speakers  do 


236  PRACTICE 

their  work  well,  they  can  select  the  Hne  of  attack,  and 
it  is  dijfficult  for  the  negative  to  keep  from  fighting  the 
case  upon  the  enemy's  hnes.  If  they  do  not  meet  the 
affirmative,  they  may  leave  an  open  way  to  victory. 

The  fii'st  affirmative  speech  can  be  a  set  speech.  This 
does  not  mean  written  out  and  memorized.  In  fact, 
The  first  speeches  should  not  be  prepared  in  that 

affirmative  way.  It  is  true,  however,  that  neither  the 
^^^^^  coach    nor    the    first    speaker's    colleagues 

should  be  surprised  at  anytliing  that  is  said  in  his  argu- 
ment. It  should  be  delivered  on  the  night  of  the  debate 
in  substantially  the  form  in  which  it  has  been  worked  out. 
If  this  is  well  done,  there  is  a  decided  advantage  in  that 
it  can  be  finished  to  a  degree  that  no  other  speech  can 
approach.  Tliis  means  that  the  affirmative  has  the  oppor- 
tunity of  carefully  thinking  out  its  case  and  presenting 
it  exactly  as  it  has  been  planned,  which  is  a  decided  ad- 
vantage. Taken  as  a  whole,  the  affirmative  case  should 
be  simply  constructed.  The  proposition  should  be  proved 
by  a  logical  sequence  of  arguments  all  direct  in  their  ap- 
phcation.  Any  compUcated  line  of  reasoning  should  be 
avoided  even  if  logically  correct.  It  is  possible  to  con- 
struct an  outline  or  a  brief  in  which  the  issues  may  be 
divided  and  subdivided,  ahnost  without  Hmit,  and  the 
result,  though  complex,  may  be,  when  presented  on  paper, 
perfectly  logical.  Upon  close  examination  it  is  beyond 
criticism.  Even  a  casual  reading  may  give  one  a  definite 
idea  of  the  course  of  the  argument.  A  speaker,  however, 
who  endeavors  to  produce  for  his  audience  in  words  this 
brief  or  outline,  will  inevitably  fail.  That  which  is  pre- 
sented to  the  eye  lingers  on  the  senses,  and  may  be  seen 
until  the  page  is  turned.    What  is  spoken  falls  upon  the 


DEBATING  237 

ear  instantaneously.  The  mind  receives  it  and  appre- 
ciates it  but  only  for  an  instant  since  another  idea  comes 
in  the  very  next  words  of  the  speaker  to  take  its  place. 
Consequently  any  case,  and  especially  any  constructive 
affirmative  case,  must  consist  of  a  few  simple  points  driven 
home  as  powerfully  as  possible,  rather  than  of  the  repro- 
duction of  a  compUcated  analysis. 

The  negative  case  varies  with  the  subject,  and  as  has 
been  said,  intercollegiate  debaters  do  not  seem  to  appre- 
ciate the  advantage  the  negative  has  and 
do  not  seem  to  be  successful  in  making  the  ^^^^  ^ 
most  of  the  burden  of  proof.  They  rarely 
get  beyond  the  stage  of  asserting  that  the  burden  of  proof 
is  on  their  opponents.  This  assertion  is  undeniably  true, 
but  it  does  not  seem  to  impress  the  average  audience  or 
the  average  judge  with  any  degree  of  force.  The  duty  of 
the  negative  is  not  to  say  the  burden  of  proof  is  on  the 
affirmative  but  by  its  arguments  to  place  it  there.  While 
your  hearers  may  not  be  impressed  with  the  logical  prin- 
ciple, they  will  be  deeply  impressed  if  you  can  keep  in 
their  minds  the  fact  that  the  affirmative  has  the  laboring 
oar.  Theoretically,  the  negative  only  denies  and  is  under 
no  obligation  to  do  any  constructive  work.  Frequently, 
however,  as  a  matter  of  practice,  it  has  to  present  a  con- 
structive case.  If  the  affirmative  on  any  particular  sub- 
ject is  successful  in  showing  that  there  is  an  evil  existing 
which  must  be  met,  or  if  it  is  evident  to  everyone  with- 
out demonstration  that  such  an  evil  exists,  theoreti- 
cally all  that  the  negative  need  do  is  to  show  that  the 
remedy  proposed  by  the  affirmative  will  not  cure  the  evil, 
but  as  a  practical  matter  they  must,  themselves,  propose 
a  remedy.    They  need  not  elaborate  it  to  the  extent  the 


238  PRACTICE 

affirmative  is  obliged  to,  but  they  must  convince  their 
hearers  that  the  remedy  proposed  by  the  affirmative  will 
not  work  and  that  their  own  probably  will.  Take  for 
example  the  following  question  which  was  the  subject  for 
an  intercollegiate  debate:  "The  history  of  trade  unionism 
for  the  past  twenty  years  shows  a  general  tendency  detri- 
mental to  the  best  interests  of  the  country."  Theoret- 
ically, all  that  the  negative  needs  to  show  is  that  the 
tendency  is  neither  good  nor  bad.  If  trade  unionism  has 
had  no  effect,  it  follows  that  the  affirmative  has  not  made 
out  its  case.  As  a  practical  matter,  however,  it  would 
be  impossible  successfully  to  defend  the  negative  of  that 
question  without  making  a  constructive  case  and  arguing 
that  the  tendency  was  positively  beneficial  rather  than 
detrimental.  Occasionally,  however,  a  question  will  be 
found  where  there  is  not  the  slightest  moral  obligation 
upon  the  negative  to  do  anything  except  to  attack  and 
destroy.  An  effective  negative  case  may  then  be  worked 
out  by  centering  a  powerful  and  concerted  attack  upon 
one  essential  part  of  the  affirmative  proposition.  The 
chain  is  no  stronger  than  the  weakest  Unk,  and  there  are 
questions  in  which  the  proper  method  of  attack  means  to 
throw  the  whole  weight  of  the  negative  argument  directly 
against  the  weakest  link  of  the  affirmative  case.  In  order 
to  be  successful  in  this,  the  negative  must  be  able  to  con- 
vince its  hearers  absolutely  that  this  particular  link  is 
an  essential  and  necessary  point  of  the  affirmative  case, 
and  that  without  it  the  affirmative  case  must  fall.  When 
this  can  be  done  it  is  very  effective  and  seems  to  produce 
what  is  known  as  a  "good  debate."  It  would  be  well, 
however,  for  any  coach  or  any  team  that  proposes  to 
attack  in  this  way  to  analyze  the  situation  with  great 


I 


DEBATING  239 

care.  The  fact  is  the  questions  for  debate  in  our  schools 
and  colleges  are  so  worded  that  the  negative  case  is  really 
a  constructive  case  upon  one  side  of  the  question;  that 
is  to  say,  the  affirmative  supports  the  proposition  and  the 
negative  supports  the  converse.  An  example  of  a  debate, 
however,  where  the  negative  case  could  be  largely  destruc- 
tive is  the  following:  ''All  elective  state  officers  should 
be  subject  to  recall."  The  negative  might  well  admit  that 
all  executive  and  legislative  officers  should  be  subject  to 
recall  and  centre  their  entire  attack  upon  the  undesira- 
bility  of  recalling  elective  judiciary  officers,  such  as  judges 
of  the  Supreme  Court.  In  any  debate  the  aim  of  the  nega- 
tive should  be  to  put  the  affirmative  upon  the  defensive. 
The  moment  the  affirmative  ceases  to  carry  its  case  for- 
ward, their  proposition  will  seem  to  the  hearers  to  halt 
and  fail.  The  affirmative  must  be  on  the  aggressive;  the 
negative  should  always  try  to  be. 

By  not  having  the  burden  of  proof,  the  negative  is  at 
Uberty  to  concede  part  of  the  aflSLrmative  case.  If  a 
pohtical  question  in  the  United  States  is 
selected,  the  affirmative  must  be  prepared  ^"^^^tagpo^ 
to  show  that  their  proposed  action  is  con- 
stitutional, unless  that  point  is  eliminated  in  some  way 
previous  to  the  debate.  The  negative  is  at  liberty  to 
attack  the  constitutionaHty  but  is  under  no  obligation 
to  do  so.  Again  the  affirmative  in  many  questions  must 
maintain  that  its  view  is  both  right  and  expedient. 
The  negative  can  either  contend  that  it  is  expedient 
but  is  not  right,  or  that  it  is  not  wrong  but  inexpe- 
dient. The  affirmative  must  anticipate  and  be  ready 
to  meet  all  effective  negative  methods  of  attack.  The 
negative  must  be  prepared,  it  is  true,  to  meet  any  case 


240  PRACTICE 

that  the  affirmative  chooses  to  set  up,  but  if  the  speakers 
appreciate  the  value  of  their  position,  it  need  not  meet  all 
its  points.  The  affirmative,  in  short,  must  meet  the  nega- 
tive on  all  their  essential  points;  the  negative  has  greater 
liberty  and  need  not  meet  the  affirmative  upon  every 
point  that  it  makes. 

One  of  the  things  that  is  bound  to  surprise  a  man  who 
is  coaching  a  debating  team  for  the  first  time  is  the  igno- 
Preparation  ranee,  which  students  of  good  oratorical 
of  the  abiUty  frequently  show,  of  the  method  of 

^^^^  preparing  a  speech.    Many  a  boy  who  has 

had  considerable  experience  in  declamation,  proves  to  be 
ignorant  of  any  idea  how  to  prepare  an  argument.  If  left 
to  himself  he  will  write  a  speech,  and  having  composed  it  to 
his  satisfaction,  learn  it  by  heart,  and  then  dehver  it  much 
as  he  has  previously  delivered  his  declamations.  This 
is  not  a  debate  and  cannot  be  made  one.  If  a  team  of  de- 
baters has  carefully  analyzed  its  opponents'  case,  it  should 
not  be  surprised  at  any  position  that  is  taken,  but  it  is 
impossible  to  anticipate  the  arrangement  or  the  manner  in 
which  the  various  ideas  are  presented.  If  a  speaker  cannot 
anticipate,  he  certainly  cannot  prepare  a  speech  before- 
hand which  will  fit  what  his  opponents  are  going  to  say. 
It  follows,  therefore,  that  it  is  impossible  to  prepare  an 
effective  speech  word  for  word  and  memorize  it.  There 
must  be  a  certain  flexibility  so  that  each  speaker  can 
adapt  his  speech  to  the  speeches  of  the  men  who  have 
preceded  him.  Indeed,  debating  would  not  be  worth 
while  if  it  were  to  consist  of  written  essays  learned  and 
recited. 

In  order  to  secure  this  flexibility  the  first  impulse  is  to 
adopt  some  artificial  device.     Frequently  students  will 


DEBATING  241 

prepare  a  speech  that  will  take  eight  or  nine  minutes  to 
deliver  and  leave  the  first  few  minutes  free  for  what  they 
call  extemporaneous  rebuttal.  Nothing  is 
more  fatal  to  success.  The  effect  generally  g^^  speech 
produced  is  that  of  a  speaker  who  is  floun- 
dering around  for  two  or  three  minutes  with  apparently 
nothing  to  say.  After  a  time  he  glances  at  his  watch 
or  gets  a  signal  and  then  suddenly  swings  into  a  fluent 
and  easy  style  which  renders  it  obvious  that  he  has 
begun  his  carefully  prepared  speech.  The  transition 
is  ludicrous  and  on  one  occasion  where  this  remarkable 
change  was  unusually  noticeable,  an  audience  at  an  inter- 
collegiate debate  was  moved  to  laughter  to  such  an  extent 
that  the  speaker  was  obliged  to  stop  and  join  with  them 
before  he  could  make  himself  heard.  The  trouble  with 
a  speech  that  is  prepared  and  learned  lies  in  the  fact  that 
the  mind  is  not  thinking  of  the  subject  while  the  speech 
is  being  delivered,  but  is  occupied  solely  in  trying  to  re- 
member written  words,  and  even  a  speaker  of  great  ex- 
perience cannot  conceal  this  fact  from  his  audience. 

If  a  student  is  to  get  real  good  out  of  a  debate,  and  if 
the  debate  when  finally  delivered  is  to  be  a  good  one,  he 
must  be  thinking  upon  his  feet  and  weigh-  lyr  *i,  ^j    f 
ing   his   words.      He  must  be  ready  at  a  preparation  to 

moment's  notice   to   leave   out  something  p?,*:^"^®    nexi- 

biuty 
that  he  had  intended  to  say,  or  to  add 

something  else  to  meet  an  emergency.  To  do  this  re- 
quires just  as  much  preparation  as  it  does  to  write 
a  speech  and  learn  it,  but  the  preparation  takes  a  dif- 
ferent form.  The  first  thing  that  a  student  should  do 
is  to  amass  his  material.  He  should  read  what  has 
been  written  upon  the  question,  taking  notes  of  the  evi- 


242  PRACTICE 

dence  that  he  thinks  he  would  Uke  to  use  in  his  own 
speech.  He  must  discuss  with  his  colleagues  the  different 
facts  he  obtains,  and  compare  the  advantages  and  the 
weaknesses.  Indeed,  for  the  first  week,  perhaps,  of  the 
time  of  preparation  for  a  debate,  informal  conferences 
between  the  coach  and  his  charges  where  matters  are 
talked  over  freely  without  attention  to  form,  are  more 
advantageous  than  attempts  to  deliver  formal  speeches. 
As  soon,  however,  as  the  speaker  feels  that  his  investiga- 
tion is  practically  completed  and  his  own  ideas  are  pretty 
well  formulated,  he  should  outline  his  speech  as  carefully 
as  possible.  Then  using  his  outline  as  a  guide,  and 
possibly  standing  before  a  mirror,  he  should  start  in  to 
make  his  speech,  thinking  it  out  as  he  goes  along.  If  he 
is  to  deliver  a  twelve-minute  speech,  it  is  quite  probable 
that,  the  first  time  he  tries  it,  he  will  use  up  the  better  part 
of  an  hour  in  covering  the  ground.  By  constant  repeti- 
tion, however,  he  will  gain  in  conciseness,  and  as  he  goes 
along,  certain  phrases  that  he  finds  effective  will  fall  into 
the  proper  place  and  will  come  naturally  to  his  tongue 
when  he  reaches  that  part  of  the  discussion.  As  the  time 
approaches  for  the  debate  the  essential  ideas  will  be  well 
fixed  in  his  mind  and  the  wording  by  which  he  intends  to 
present  them  will  be  settled  upon  with  a  remarkable  de- 
gree of  definiteness.  The  night  of  the  debate  he  will  find 
himself  presenting  a  speech  with  which  he  is  thoroughly  fa- 
miliar, the  phrasing  of  which  is  carefully  prepared,  and  yet, 
a  speech  that  is  extremely  flexible.  A  sentence  or  a  para- 
graph can  be  left  out  if  it  is  advisable  without  disturbing 
the  rest  of  the  speech  or  his  own  equanimity.  If  the 
previous  speaker  has  brought  up  some  point  which  he  has 
anticipated  but  not  expected,  the  proper  answer  to  it  will 


DEBATING  243 

come  naturally  to  his  tongue  and  will  drop  into  the  proper 
place  so  as  to  seem  part  of  a  well  considered  whole.  Even 
if  he  is  absolutely  surprised  and  encounters  evidence  or  ar- 
guments which  he  has  never  heard  of  before,  he  can  make 
such  answer  as  he  desires  and  the  audience  may  be  left 
in  ignorance  that  there  has  been  any  surprise  accom- 
plished. In  other  words,  he  will  be  thinking  and  talking, 
not  remembering  and  talking,  or,  to  put  it  a  little  differ- 
ently, he  will  be  a  debater  and  not  an  essayist. 

The  advantages  of  this  method  of  preparation  when 
it  comes  to  actual  rebuttal  are  obvious.  To  memorize  a 
rebuttal  speech  beforehand  requires  not  only 
ability  as  a  debater  but  also  capacity  as  a  ^^^  rebuttal 
prophet.  Preparation  for  rebuttal  is  indeed 
difficult,  but  certainly  it  does  not  consist  in  writing  any- 
thing out  and  then  committing  it  to  memory.  The  first  es- 
sential is  undoubtedly  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  subject. 
The  more  familiar  a  debater  is  with  the  most  minute  de- 
tails of  his  argument,  the  more  ready  he  is  to  reply  to  any- 
thing that  may  be  said.  Considerable  may  be  anticipated. 
The  main  points  of  the  other  side  should  be  apparent 
upon  analysis,  and  a  certain  amount  of  preparation  can 
be  made  to  meet  them.  In  arguing  the  Woman  Suffrage 
question,  for  instance,  it  is  probable  if  not  certain  that 
anti-suffragists  will  bring  forward  in  one  form  or  another 
the  argument  that  women  do  not  want  to  vote  and  have 
proved  this  by  not  voting  when  they  have  had  the  oppor- 
tunity. For  the  suffragists  to  go  into  debate  without 
having  considered  the  exact  way  in  which  they  are  going 
to  meet  this  point,  is  to  go  into  the  debate  without  prep- 
aration. 

The  gravest  danger  in  rebuttal  speeches  comes  from 


244  PRACTICE 

the  natural  desire  of  the  students  to  refute  too  much,  or 
rather,  to  refute  too  many  points.  A  dozen  things  may 
How  many  have  been  said  to  which  one  takes  excep- 
points  should  tion  and  for  which  he  beUeves  he  has  an 
be  refuted  answer.  If  he  endeavors  in  a  five  minutes' 
speech,  however,  to  deal  with  all  the  points,  he  will  find 
that  his  so-called  rebuttal  will  fall  into  a  mere  recital  of 
the  argument  made  by  his  opponent  and  a  contradiction 
of  it  by  himself.  It  is  doubtful  if  anyone  can  present 
effectively  more  than  three  ideas  in  a  rebuttal  speech  of 
five  minutes,  and  it  is  often  better  to  take  up  two,  or  even 
one  of  the  points.  It  may  be  that  your  opponent  is  wrong 
here  and  there  with  regard  to  dates  and  figures,  and  it 
may  be  that  the  error  is  material,  but  it  does  not  follow 
that  it  is  worth  while  to  devote  much  of  your  limited  time 
to  show  that  he  is  wrong  in  what  may  be,  after  all,  a 
minor  matter.  The  most  successful  rebuttal  speeches  are 
those  in  which  the  speaker  controverts  one  of  the  main 
issues  of  his  opponents  frequently  by  stating  in  a  new 
form  and  in  new  wording  ideas  already  brought  out  on 
his  side.  As  a  rule,  therefore,  the  speeches  in  rebuttal 
should  meet  comparatively  few  ideas,  but  those  that  they 
do  meet  should  be  the  ideas  of  prime  importance. 

Where  the  debate  is  held  under  the  ordmary  inter- 
collegiate rules  the  coach  and  speakers  upon  the  affirma- 
A  negative  tive  should  not  lose  sight  of  this  fact :  since 
advantage  ^^g  i^st  principal  speech  of  the  negative  is 
firmativetask  followed  by  the  first  rebuttal  speech  of  the 
in  rebuttal  same  side,  there  is  a  period  of  fifteen  to 
seventeen  minutes  when  the  affirmative  is  not  heard.  In 
the  hands  of  clever  speakers  on  the  negative  this  period 
may  be  used  for  a  very  effective  attack.    The  first  rebuttal 


DEBATING  245 

speaker  on  the  affirmative  should  therefore  pay  special 
attention  to  these  two  speeches,  and  take  care  to  counter- 
act their  effect. 

The  arrangement  of  speakers  in  a  debate  is  a  matter  of 
prime  importance,  and  yet,  one  to  which  httle  attention 
is  given.     There  seems  to  be  a  feehng  that 
the  last  speech  is  the  most  important  and  of^speakers 
that  the  second  is  more  important  than  the 
first.     We  frequently  find  speakers,  therefore,  arranged 
in  what  we  may  term  the  order  of  cUmax.    There  is  no 
hard  and  fast  rule,  however,  which  can  be  followed,  be- 
cause everything  depends  upon  the  individuality  of  the 
three  men  with  whom  you  have  to  deal.    There  are  some 
general  principles  which  can  be  adopted  with  success. 

The  first  position  is  perhaps  as  important  as  any,  and 
yet,  it  does  not  need  necessarily  the  best  speaker.  It 
does  need  a  man  who  is  clear-headed  and  Qualities  the 
who,  above  all,  possesses  the  faculty  of  first  speaker 
what  we  may  call  "  crystalhzation."  He 
must  be  able  to  gather  his  thoughts  together  and  to 
present  clear  mental  pictures  to  the  audience.  The  first 
speech  is  no  place  for  a  profuse  or  verbose  man.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  need  not  be  made  by  a  deep  thinker 
or  a  profound  student  of  the  question.  It  needs  one 
who  is  clear-headed,  forceful  in  manner,  and  expository 
in  his  methods  of  presentation.  Upon  him  more  than 
anyone  else  depends  the  understanding  which  the  au- 
dience is  to  get  of  the  subject  in  the  beginning  when 
it  is  most  essential  that  they  should  view  the  case  along 
certain  lines.  At  the  same  time,  the  first  speaker  need 
not  be  the  most  experienced  of  the  debaters.  Of  all  the 
speakers  he  has  the  smallest  opportunity  for  rebuttal  in 


246  PRACTICE 

his  main  speech.  Quickness  of  wit  and  apprehension,  and 
readiness  and  ability  to  extemporize  will  not  be  called 
upon  here  as  in  the  later  speeches.  In  other  words,  the 
first  speaker  need  not  be  a  finished  debater  nor  the  most 
eloquent  speaker  on  the  team.  It  is  essential,  however, 
that  above  all  the  others  he  should  have  the  abihty  to 
•  express  clearly  his  meaning  in  definite,  unmistakable  terms. 

The  second  and  third  speeches  are  more  alike.  After  the 
first  speaker  is  selected,  the  other  two  men  can  be  inter- 
Character  of  changed  more  than  once  until  it  has  been  set- 
the  second  tied  in  which  order  the  team  works  best.  The 
spea  er  second  speech,  perhaps,  calls  for  the  greatest 

mental  ability.  The  man  who  is  the  best  thinker  can  be 
utilized  in  this  position,  for  it  is  here  that  the  most  original 
thinldng  seems  to  be  required.  It  is  in  this  speech  that  a 
strong  team  is  likely  to  put  a  weak  man  upon  the  defensive, 
and  the  second  speaker  needs  to  be  more  versatile  for  that 
reason  than  the  third.  If  there  is  one  man  who  above  his 
fellows  is  witty  or  humorous,  this  is  the  place  to  put  him. 
The  second  speaker  has  more  time  to  carry  on  the  debate 
than  either  of  his  colleagues,  for  he  does  not  have  so  much 
introductory  matter  as  the  first,  nor  does  he  have  to  spend 
as  much  time  summing  up  as  the  last. 

The  third  speaker  should  be  the  most  persuasive  of  the 
three,  and  there  is  no  rule  of  debating  that  will  prevent 
Character  of  ^^  from  being  eloquent  if  he  knows  how. 
the  third  Upon  him  devolves  the  duty  of  gathering 

spea  er  ^j^^   scattered   threads   together,    tying   up 

some  of  the  broken  ones,  and  showing  the  complete  whole. 
In  some  respects  it  seems  that  the  man  whom  the  audience 
will  consider  the  strongest  speaker  should  be  placed  last, 
but  this  rule  cannot  be  followed  uniformly  because,  as 


DEBATING  247 

has  been  pointed  out,  it  is  necessary  to  take  into  considera- 
tion the  characteristics  of  the  men.  It  is  perhaps  safe  to 
say  that  the  weakest  man  should  never  be  put  in  the  third 
place.  If  that  is  done,  there  is  produced  a  distinct  weak- 
ening as  the  case  comes  to  a  close  and  this  is  generally 
fatal  to  success. 

It  is  the  maxim  of  successful  golf  playing,  and  indeed 
it  is  true  of  almost  any  sport  in  which  a  ball  is  used,  that 
the  contestant  should  "keep  his  eye  on  the 
ball."  Figuratively  speaking  it  is  equally  of  tiie^debate 
true  in  debating.  The  coach  should  impress 
upon  his  men  that  their  only  endeavor  is  to  prove  that 
they  are  right.  They  are  not  there  to  make  brilliant, 
speeches  nor  to  please  individual  peculiarities,  supposed 
or  real,  of  the  judges;  they  are  not  there  to  use  tricks  to 
bring  success;  they  have  no  new  and  untried  methods 
which  have  lain  undiscovered  during  all  the  thousands  of 
years  since  oratory  was  young.  While  the  desire  to  win  is 
laudable,  they  can  best  accompHsh  it  by  proving  the  cor- 
rectness of  their  side  of  the  question.  Their  whole  object 
should  be,  by  the  use  of  an  art  that  is  as  old  as  the  speech 
of  man  itself,  to  persuade  an  unprejudiced  body  that  the 
proposition  for  which  they  contend  is  correct  and  should 
be  adopted. 


SUBJECTS  ADOPTED  FOR  DEBATE  IN  THE  HARVARD- 
YALE  AND  HARVARD-PRINCETON  DEBATES  FROM 
JANUARY  14, 1892,  TO  THE  PRESENT  TIME 

1.  (January  14,  1892.) 

A  young  man  casting  his  first  ballot  in  1892  should  vote 
for  the  nominees  of  the  Democratic  party. 

2.  (March  25,  1892.) 

Immigration  to  the  United  States  should  be  restricted. 

3.  (January  18,  1893.) 

The  power  of  railroad  corporations  should  not  be  further 
limited  by  national  legislation. 

4.  (May  2,  1893.) 

The  time  has  now  come  when  the  pohcy  of  Protection  should 
be  abolished  by  the  United  States. 
6.     (January  18,  1894.) 

Independent  action  in  politics  is  preferable  to  party  al- 
legiance. 

6.  (April  27,  1894.) 

The  members  of  the  cabinet  should  be  given  full  membership 
in  the  House  of  Representatives. 

7.  (January  18,  1895.) 

Attempts  of  employers  to  ignore  associations  of  employees 
and  to  deal  with  individual  workmen  only,  are  prejudicial 
to  the  best  interest  of  both  parties. 

8.  (March  27,  1895.) 

If  it  were  possible  a  reasonable  property  qualification  for 
the  exercise  of  the  municipal  franchise  in  the  United  States 
would  be  desirable. 

9.  (March  13,  1896.) 

Congress  should  take  immediate  steps  to  retire  and  cancel 
all  of  the  United  States  legal  tender  notes. 
249 


250      SUBJECTS  ADOPTED  FOR  DEBATE 

10.  (May  1,  1896.) 

A  permanent  court  of  arbitration  should  be  established  by 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain. 

11.  (December  18,  1896.) 

Assuming  the  adoption  of  adequate  constitutional  amend- 
ments, the  United  States  should  institute  a  system  of  re- 
sponsible cabinet  government. 

12.  (March  26,  1897.) 

The  United  States  should  adopt  definitely  the  single  gold 
standard,  and  should  decline  to  enter  a  bimetallic  league, 
even  if  Great  Britain,  France  and  Germany  should  be  will- 
ing to  enter  such  a  league. 

13.  (December  3,  1897.) 

The  United  States  should  annex  the  Hawaiian  Islands. 

14.  (May  11,  1898.) 

The  present  restrictions  on  immigration  into  the  United 
States  are  insufficient. 

15.  (April  5,  1899.) 

A  formal  alliance  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  for  protection  and  advancement  of  their  common 
interests,  is  ad\dsable. 

16.  (May  12,  1899.) 

The  present  method  of  electing  United  States  Senators  is 
preferable  to  a  method  of  election  by  popular  vote. 

17.  (December  15,  1899.) 

England's  claims  in  her  controversy  with  the  Transvaal 
are  justifiable. 

18.  (March  30,  1900.) 

Porto  Rico  should  be  included  within  the  customs  boundary 

of  the  United  States. 

19.  (December  7,  1900.) 

The  permanent  retention  of  the  Philippine  Islands  by  the 
United  States  is  desirable. 

20.  (May  10,  1901.) 

Congress  was  justified  in  imposing  the  terms  embodied  in 
the  Piatt  Amendment  to  the  army  appropriation  bill,  as 


SUBJECTS  ADOPTED   FOR  DEBATE       251 

20.  (May  10,  1901)— Continued 

conditions  precedent  to  leaving  the  government  and  control 
of  Cuba  to  its  people,  the  condition  with  regard  to  the 
Isle  of  Pines  being  excepted. 

21.  (March  26,  1902.) 

Mayor  Low  should  strictly  enforce  the  excise  laws  in  New 
York  City. 

22.  (May  12,  1902.) 

The  immigration  of  Chinese  laborers  into  our  insular  posses- 
sions should  be  prohibited  by  law. 

23.  (December  12,  1902.) 

^Vhenever  in  the  event  of  continued  domestic  violence,  lives 
and  property  are  not  adequately  protected  by  a  State,  it 
is  for  the  pubhc  good  that  the  president  should  have  the 
power  to  afford  protection  without  the  application  of  the 
State  for  Federal  Aid. 

24.  (March  23,  1903.) 

The  United  States  should  permit  the  European  govern- 
ment to  seize  and  hold  permanently  territory  of  the 
debtor  state  not  exceeding  in  value  the  amount  of  the 
award.  1 

25.  (December  4,  1903.) 

The  history  of  trade  unionism  for  the  past  twenty  years 
shows  a  general  tendency  detrimental  to  the  best  interests 
of  the  country. 

1  The  following  facts  were  presupposed  in  connection  with  this 
debate: 

1.  The  existence  of  money  claims  by  a  European  government 
against  a  South  American  State. 

2.  Such  claims  submitted  by  consent  of  both  parties  to  The  Hague 
Tribunal  for  arbitration. 

3.  An  award  by  said  Tribunal  in  favor  of  the  European  govern- 
ment. 

4.  The  time  and  amount  of  payment  fixed  by  the  award. 

5.  Default  of  payment  according  to  terms  of  the  award. 

6.  A  system  of  absolute  free  trade  existing  in  the  debtor  state. 


252      SUBJECTS  ADOPTED  FOR  DEBATE 

26.  (May  6,  1904.) 

Laws  should  be  passed  compelling  the  management  of  a 
business  undertaking  which  secures  control  of  an  industry 
to  sell  its  products  at  reasonable  rates  and  without  dis- 
crimination. 

27.  (March  28,  1905.) 

The  free  elective  system  is  the  best  available  plan  for  the 
undergraduate  course  of  study. 

28.  (May  5,  1905.) 

A  commission  should  be  given  power  to  fix  railroad  rates. 

29.  (December  15,  1905.) 

Intercollegiate  football  in  America  is  a  detriment  rather 
than  a  benefit. 

30.  (March  30,  1906.) 

It  would  be  for  the  best  interest  of  New  York  City  to  own 
its  street  railway  system;  the  term  "street  railway  system" 
being  taken  to  mean  elevated,  surface  and  subway  lines. 

31.  (December  7,  1906.) 

Further  restriction  of  immigration  is  undesirable.  By 
further  restriction  is  meant  the  application  of  additional 
tests  with  the  object  of  diminishing  materially  the  number 
of  immigrants;  but  the  nature  and  practicability  of  those 
tests  is  not  to  be  discussed. 

32.  (March  22,  1907.) 

The  present  distribution  of  power  between  the  Federal  and 
State  government  is  not  adapted  to  modern  conditions,  and 
calls  for  readjustment  in  the  direction  of  further  centraUza- 
tion. 

33.  (March  20,  1908.) 

Further  material  increases  in  the  United  States  navy  are 
undesirable. 

34.  (May  1,  1908.) 

It  will  be  for  the  best  interests  of  Cuba  that  the  United 
States,  before  the  end  of  the  next  two  years,  cease  to  have 
any  part  in  the  government  of  that  island  reserving  only 
those  rights  included  in  the  Piatt  Amendment. 


SUBJECTS  ADOPTED  FOR  DEBATE      253 

35.  (March  26,  1909.) 

All  corporations  engaged  in  interstate  commerce  should 
be  compelled  to  take  out  a  Federal  charter. 

36.  (March  21,  1910.) 

The  Federal  Government  should  have  the  power  to  impose 
an  income  tax,  not  apportioned  among  the  states  according 
to  population. 

37.  (April  3,  1911.) 

All  elective  state  officers  should  be  nominated  by  direct 
primaries. 

38.  (March  29,  1912.) 

The  United  States  Government  should  accept  the  principle 
of  monopoly  control  of  industry  and  regulate  prices  in  all 
cases  where  the  monopoly  has  been  brought  about  by  the 
operation  of  economic  laws. 

39.  (March  14,  1913.) 

The  United  States  Government  should  exempt  our  coast- 
wise trade  from  Panama  Canal  tolls. 

40.  (March  27,  1914.) 

The  women  of  the  United  States  should  be  given  the  suf- 
frage on  equal  terms  with  men. 

41.  (March  26,  1915.) 

The  best  interest  of  the  United  States  demand  a  prompt  and 
substantial  increase  in  her  army  and  navy. 

42.  (March  24,  1916.) 

The  United  States  should  adopt  a  system  of  compulsory 
military  service  modeled  after  that  of  Switzerland. 


APPENDIX 


NOTE  BY  AUTHORS 

The  following  brief  and  argument  were  written  by  Mr.  William 
T.  Gunraj,  when  a  senior  in  Harvard  College  in  the  year  1914. 
It  was  part  of  the  required  work  in  a  course  in  English  composi- 
tion dealing  with  argument,  and  both  brief  and  forensic  received 
the  highest  grade.   It  is  reproduced  here  for  the  following  reasons : 

1.  As  an  illustration  of  a  good  type  of  work  that  can  be  done 
by  students  in  courses  in  argument. 

2.  For  the  purpose  of  illustrating  what  has  been  set  forth 
in  the  preceding  pages.  The  marginal  notes  endeavor  to  point 
out  both  to  students  and  teachers  examples  of  the  principles 
discussed  in  the  preceding  pages. 

3.  As  a  form  or  model  for  students  to  consider  in  writing  their 
work. 

The  authors  believe  that  an  actual  argument  prepared  in  a 
course  in  composition  by  a  student  will  be,  on  the  whole,  more 
helpful  than  classic  illustrations  drawn  from  the  great  masters 
of  oratory.  While  the  work  merits  approbation,  it  is  not  and 
does  not  pretend  to  be  perfection. 

In  addition  to  the  individual  criticism  which  is  set  forth  in 
the  marginal  notes,  attention  is  especially  directed  to  the  fol- 
lowing points: 

1.  The  amount  of  evidence  that  is  produced.  There  is  noth- 
ing assertive  in  the  entire  argument.  Every  statement  is  proved 
not  by  a  single  fact,  but  by  many  pieces  of  evidence,  and  in 
nearly  every  instance  the  evidence  is  convincing. 

2.  The  clearness  of  the  entire  argument,  due  to  the  adherence 
to  the  structure  as  set  forth  in  the  brief. 

3.  The  closeness  with  which  the  brief  is  followed  considered 
in  connection  with  the  lack  of  artificiality.  Although  the  sub- 
divisions of  the  brief  are  followed  almost  to  their  minutest  de- 

265 


256  NOTE  BY  AUTHORS 

tails,  the  argument  has  little  of  the  academic  quality,  and  pro- 
ceeds with  a  swing  and  force  that  is  commendable. 

4.  The  excellence  of  the  style.  The  writer  has  a  good  vocabu- 
lary, excellent  command  of  English,  and  a  vivid,  yet  simple 
selection  of  words  to  express  his  meaning;  all  of  these  qualities 
render  the  argument  readable.  The  last  paragraphs  furnish  a 
good  example  of  a  purely  persuasive  peroration. 

5.  Its  weakest  point  seems  to  be  in  refutation. 

It  may  be  advisable,  although  surely  not  necessary,  for  the 
authors  to  state  that  this  work  is  offered  only  as  a  piece  of  English 
composition.  Whether  or  not  we  agree  with  the  conclusion 
to  which  its  writer  comes,  we  can  at  least  see  that  it  is  a  good 
presentation  of  the  view  which  he  holds. 

A.  P.  S. 

S.  L.  G. 


SHOULD  IRELAND  HAVE  HOME 
RULE? 

BRIEF 
INTRODUCTION 

I.  A  reconsideration  of  the  circumstances  under 
which  Home  Rule  was  being  granted  to  Ireland 
is  of  timely  interest  in  that 

A.  The  lull  in  the  struggle  brought  on  by  the 
European  war  affords  a  suitable  oppor- 
tunity for  a  cool-headed  discussion. 

B.  Many  people  are  entertaining  grave  fears 
as  to  how  Ireland  will  relate  herself  to  the 
crisis  in  which  England  is  involved. 

C.  Many  others  who  beUeved  in  Home  Rule 
are  allowing  their  faith  to  be  shaken  by 
the  separatist  attitude  of  certain  Irish- 
Americans. 

II.  The  history  of  the  question  is  briefly  as 
follows: 

A.  In  1801  the  Irish  Parliament  voted  for  the 
Act  of  Union  with  England. 

B.  Since  then  Ireland  has  been  in  a  state  of 
chronic  rebellion. 

C.  Two  unsuccessful  attempts  were  made  by 
Gladstone  to  give  Ireland  Home  Rule. 

D.  The  present  Home  Rule  Bill,  introduced 
in  1912,  passed  Parliament  finally  in  the 
summer  of  1914. 

E.  Pending  a  settlement  with  Ulster,  the  bill 
had  not  yet  been  allowed  to  pass  into  law 
when  the  war  broke  out. 

257 


258  APPENDIX 


III.  The  contentions  on  either  side  in  brief  are  as 
follows : 
A.  Those  who  oppose  Home  Rule  say: 

1.  The  Irish  people  show  that  they  are 
not  anxious  to  have  Home  Rule,  in  that 

a.  They  are  unwilling  to  support  the 
struggle  with  their  own  means. 

b.  They  let  Americans  and  Australians 
support  it. 

2.  The  Irish  people  do  not  need  Home 
Rule,  inasmuch  as 

a.  They  are  more  prosperous  now  than 
they  have  been  for  a  century,  in  that 

(1)  Their  commerce  is  greater  than 
ever. 

(2)  Their    annual    savings    run    far 
into  the  millions. 

3.  The  present  Home  Rule  bill  will  prove 
oppressive,  in  that 

a.  Under  its  working  there  wall  be  two 
taxes  where  formerly  there  was  but 
one. 

b.  It  gives  to  Ireland  little  power  over 
her  industrial  affairs. 

4.  Home  Rule  for  Ireland  will  mean  a  weak- 
ening of  the  British  Empire,  in  that, 

a.  Ireland  will  use  Home  Rule  as  a 
stepping-stone  to  complete  separa- 
tion. 

b.  Her  Parliament  will  criticize  in  a 
hostile  manner  the  acts  of  the  British 
government  to  the  detriment  of  its 
interests  abroad. 

5.  Civil  war  is  sure  to  ensue  when  Home 
Rule  takes  effect,  inasmuch  as 

a.  Ulster  is  prepared  to  resist  by  armed 
force  every  attempt  to  subject  her 
to  an  Irish  Parhament. 


APPENDIX  259 

B.  Those  who  advocate  Home  Rule  say: 

1.  So  far  from  not  desiring  Home  Rule, 
the  Irish  people  consider  that  their  only- 
salvation  consists  in  being  allowed  to 
govern  themselves. 

2.  Home  Rule  is  necessary  for  the  well- 
being  of  Ireland,  inasmuch  as 

a.  It  alone  can  satisfy  the  national  as- 
pirations of  the  Irish  people. 

b.  It  will  stop  the  hideous  drain  of 
emigration. 

c.  It  will  develop  Irish  character  by 
making  it  responsible  for  its  own 
destiny. 

3.  England  is  utterly  unfitted  for  govern- 
ing Ireland,  inasmuch  as 

a.  She  is  temperamentally  incapable 
of  understanding  the  temper  of  the 
Irish. 

4.  Home  Rule  for  Ireland  will  be  of  great 
benefit  to  the  Empire,  in  that 

a.  It  will  relieve  ParUament  of  a  great 
deal  of  work  for  which  it  has  no 
time. 

b.  It  will  serve  as  a  guide  in  bringing 
about  federation. 

IV.  The    foregoing    contentions    may    be    con- 
veniently reduced,  as  follows: 
A.  This  elimination  may  be  made: 

1.  From  the  contentions  of  the  negative   is   not   this   too 
we  must  omit  all  consideration  of  the   ''^uiTi'piea  of  this 
present  Home  Rule  bill,  inasmuch  as    ^^^^j^^^  '^'""'* 
a.  All  contentions  about  the  inadequacy 
of  any  bill  are  extraneous  to  our 
question,  in  that 

(1)  They  do  not  affect  the  desira- 
bility of  granting  Home  Rule  to 
Ireland. 


260  APPENDIX 


B.  The  following  combinations  may  be  made: 

1.  In  the  contentions  of  the  negative  the 

question  of  Ulster  may  be  conven- 
iently   discussed    under   the    issue: 
Does  Ireland  want  Home  Rule?  in- 
asmuch as 
a.  Ulster  is  part  of  Ireland. 

2.  In  the  contentions  of  the  affirmative  the 
question  of  England's  fitness  to  govern 
Ireland  may  be  discussed  under  the 
issue:  Does  Ireland  need  Home  Rule? 
inasmuch  as 

a.  The  incapabiUty  of  England  to 
govern  Ireland  only  emphasizes  Ire- 
land's need  of  self-government. 

V.  We  assume  that  federation  is  a  desirable 
thing  for  the  British  Empire. 

VI.  The  special  issues  then  are: 

A.  Does  Ireland  really  want  Home  Rule? 

B.  Does  Ireland  really  need  Home  Rule? 

C.  Will  Ireland  when  she  gets  Home  Rule  be 
a  detriment  to  the  interests  of  the  British 
Empire? 

PROOF 

I.  Ireland  should  have  Home  Rule,  for 
A.  She  wants  it,  for 

1.  She  has  been  asking  for  it  for  the  last 
thirty  years  in  a  peaceable  way,  for 
a.  She  has  been  sending  representatives 
to  Westminster  who  have  been  over- 
whelmingly Home  Rulers,  for 
(1)  Since  1885  when  Ireland  got  her 
full    electoral    rights    she    has 
elected  84  to  86  Home  Rulers 
out    of   a    total   representation 
of  103. 


APPENDIX  261 

2.  She  never  sanctioned  the  Act  of  Union, 
for 

a.  The  Irish  ParHament  that  voted  it- 
self away  did  not  represent  the  whole    Refutation. 

.  Vwlates  Rule  XI. 

Irish  people,  for 

(1)  It  represented  only  the  Protes- 
tants who  were  decidedly  in  the 
minority. 

b.  Even  the  Protestants  who  alone  had 
office-holding  rights  did  not  give 
their  sanction,  for 

(1)  They  drew  up  resolutions  pro- 
testing against  the  attempt  to 
deprive  them  of  their  rights. 

c.  The  Irish  ParHament  itself  acted 
under  compulsion,  for 

(1)  Its  members  had  received  exorbi- 
tant bribes  from  outside  sources, 

3.  She  has  been  dissatisfied  with  British 
rule  all  along,  for 

a.  She  has  been  continually  rebelling 
against  British  Rule,  for 

(1)  In  1803  an  insurrection  under 
Robert  Emmet  took  place. 

(2)  In  1825-29  there  was  a  struggle 
for  CathoUc  emancipation. 

(3)  In  1835-38  there  was  a  war  for 
the  abolition  of  the  tithe. 

(4)  In  1848  there  was  another  re- 
bellion. 

(5)  In  1882  some  Irishmen  murdered 
in  broad  daylight  prominent 
British  administrative  officials 
in  Dublin. 

(6)  Ireland  has  hindered  peaceful 
administration,  for 

(a)  Irishmen   attack    post-office 
men  while  deUvering  mail. 


262  APPENDIX 

(b)  They  boycott  individuals 
who  obey  the  government  in 
certain  particulars  where  the 
people  have  sworn  to  disobey. 

4.  It  is  immaterial,  according  to  the  prin- 
uuJ^'ruU^v  "'^  ciples  of  democratic  majority  govern- 
ment by  which  the  United  Kingdom 
is  governed,  that  Ulster  does  not  want 
Home  Rule,  for 

a.  Ulster  has  only  one-third  of  the 
population  of  Ireland. 

b.  Only  a  part  of  Ulster  is  unionist,  for 
(1)  Of  the  33  members  from  Ulster 

in  the  present  Parliament  only 
17  are  unionists. 

5.  It  is  not  true  that  the  Irish  do  not  sup- 
port Home  Rule  with  their  means,  for 

a.  Contributions  to  the  cause  are  reg- 
ularly reported  in  leading  periodicals. 

b.  The  foreigners  who  contribute  from 
abroad  are  none  others  than  emi- 
grated Irish  who  have  felt  the  brunt 
of  English  misrule. 

B.  Ireland  needs  to  be  allowed  to  govern  her- 
self, for 

1.  England  is  incapable  of  understanding 
her,  for 

a.  England  is  alien  to  Ireland  in  funda- 
mentals, for 

(1)  The  English  are  of  Teutonic 
origin,  whereas  the  Irish  are  of 
Celtic. 

(2)  The  English  are  mainly  Protes- 
tant, whereas  the  Irish  are  mainly 
Catholic. 

2.  Under  English  rule  the  country  has 
suffered  tremendously  in  economic  af- 
fairs, for 


APPENDIX  263 


a.  All  her  industries  have  been  syste- 
matically repressed,  for 

(1)  British  embargoes  first  destroyed 
the  Irish  cattle  trade. 

(2)  The  Irish  woollen  industry  was 
destroyed  by  prohibitive  legis- 
lation. 

(3)  The  Irish  linen  industry,  also, 
was  later  destroyed. 

(4)  The  Irish  merchant  marine  was 
destroyed  by  hostile  navigation 
acts. 

b.  The  country  has  been  depopulated, 
for 

(1)  Whereas  in  1841  there  was  a  pop- 
ulation of  8,175,124,  in  1911  the 
population  was  only  4,381,951. 

c.  Owing  to  the  industrial  situation, 
famines  have  been  frequent. 

d.  Even  the  condition  of  agriculture, 
the  one  unmolested  industry  of  the 
Irish,  has  not  been  too  salutary. 

She  can  govern  herseK  better  than 
England  has  been  able  to  govern  her, 
for 

a.  She  understands  her  own  needs  bet- 
ter than  England  can  understand 
them. 

b.  History  shows  that  she  governed 
herself  well  before  England  took 
away  her  Parliament. 

The  contention  that  the  commerce  of 
the  Irish  is  increasing  does  not  prove 
that  the  Irish  are  prosperous,  for 
a.  A  comparison  of  Irish  foreign  com- 
merce with  that  of  other  prosperous 
nations  shows  that  that  of  the  Irish 
is  pitiably  small,  for 


264  APPENDIX 

(1)  In  proportion  to  population 
Irish  commerce  is  only  one- 
fiftieth  of  that  of  Belgium. 

(2)  In  proportion  to  population 
Irish  commerce  is  only  one- 
hundredth  of  that  of  Hol- 
land. 

5.  The  contention  that  the  savings  of  the 
Irish    are    increasing    does    not    prove 
Irish  industrial  prosperity,  for 
a.  The  increase  in  savings  can  be  amply 
accounted   for   by   the   remittances 
from  relatives  abroad. 
C.  Self-governing   Ireland   will  not  prove  a 
detriment  to  the  Empire,  for 

1.  The  occasion  for  hostility  will  have 
passed  away  when  Ireland  gets  self- 
government,  for 

a.  The  cause  for  her  hostility  is  un- 
sympathetic British  legislation. 

2.  So  far  from  being  a  detriment,  self- 
governing  Ireland  "will  contribute  to  the 
well-being  of  the  Empire,  for 

'^"'*  ^  ^'^  a.  She  will  be  able  to  contribute  means 

to  its  support,  instead  of  being  a 
burden  on  it,  as  now,  for 
(1)  She  will  be  more  prosperous  than 
now,  for 

(a)  Her  own  ParUament  will 
better  provide  for  her  in- 
dustrial needs. 

(b)  History  shows  that,  under 
the  rule  of  the  Parliament 
immediately  preceding  the 
Act  of  Union,  Ireland  at- 
tained to  a  degree  of  pros- 
perity, the  like  of  which  she 
has  not  since  seen. 


APPENDIX  265 


b.  She  will  relieve  the  Westminster 
Parliament  of  much  work,  for 

(1)  She  will  attend  to  her  own 
needs,  leaving  only  certain  re- 
served services  for  the  West- 
minster Parliament  to  consider. 

c.  Irish  Home  Rule  will  serve  as  a  guide 
in  bringing  about  federation. 

d.  Irish  self-government  will  enhst  the 
good  will  of  the  Irish  abroad  in  favor 
of  the  Empire. 

3.  It  is  not  likely  that  Ireland  will  want 
to  use  Home  Rule  as  a  means  to  separate 
from  the  Empire,  for 

a.  It  will  be  against  her  commercial 
interest  to  separate  from  Britain,  for 
(1)  The  bulk  of  her  trade  is  with 

Britain,  which  trade  she  will  lose 
if  she  separates. 

b.  Self-protection  forbids  separation 
from  Britain,  for 

(1)  Ireland  has  no  navy  of  her  own 
to  defend  herself. 

c.  The  notable  leaders  of  the  nationalist 
party  have  been  federalists,  for 

(1)  Parnell  was  opposed  to  separa- 
tion. 

(2)  Redmond,  the  present  leader,  is 
a  staunch  federalist. 

4.  It  is  not  likely  that  the  Irish  Parlia- 

ment will  be  disposed  to  criticize  the 
actions  of  the  British  government, 
for 
a.  It  will  be  better  disposed  towards  it, 
for 
(1)  The  cause  of  hostility  will  have 

been  removed  when  Home  Rule 

is  granted. 


266  APPENDIX 

«»'«  ^  ('>  (2)  The  Home  Rule  party,  the  party 

of  hostihty,  will  have  disbanded. 

CONCLUSION 

A.  Ireland  really  wants  Home  Rule. 

B.  Ireland  really  needs  Home  Rule. 

C.  Home  Rule  will  not  mean  a  weakening  of 
the  British  Empire. 

Therefore  Ireland  should  have  Home  Rule. 


SHOULD  IRELAND  HAVE  HOME 
RULE? 


BY 


William  T.  Gunraj 


The  recent  turn  in  the  Home  Rule  struggle 
bears  a  striking  resemblance  to  the  outcome  of 
the  ancient  battle  of  the  Frogs  and  the  Mice. 
The  assembled  hosts  of  these  doughty  creatures 
had  put  forward  their  champions  and  were  about 
to  begin  the  contest  for  supremacy  when  a  kite 
swooped  down  upon  them  and  began  indis- 
criminately to  gobble  them  up.  This  great  and 
calamitous  war — the  most  terrible  within  the 
memory  of  man — was  precipitated  just  at  the 
time  when  Ulster  with  her  marshalled  forces  was 
preparing  to  give  battle  rather  than  submit  to 
the  rule  of  a  local  parliament.  It  drew  the  atten- 
tion of  friend  and  foe  to  the  danger  which  threat- 
ened all  alike  and  put  an  end  for  a  time  to  the 
civil  strife.  As  it  is,  the  lull  in  the  Irish  struggle 
affords  us  an  excellent  opportunity  for  recon- 
sidering the  circumstances  under  which  Home 
Rule  was  being  granted  to  Ireland. 

The  interest  of  the  American  people  in  the 
welfare  of  other  peoples  has  never  been  wanting. 
I  say  it  with  a  just  pride,  for  I  see  in  it  a  hopeful 
sign  of  the  ultimate  bringing  about  of  the  comity 
and  concord  among  the  nations  that  we  so  much 
desire.  The  hearty  response  of  the  rank  and 
file  of  this  nation  to  the  needs  of  suffering  Bel- 
gium is  a  lasting  tribute  to  its  good  nature  and 
humanity,  and  an  indication  of  its  willingness  to 

267 


Introductory  para- 
graph challenges 
attention  and  sug- 
gests the  immedi- 
ate cause  for  dis- 
cussion 


Uncouth      phrase 
used  intentionally 


This     and     tuc- 

ceeding  paragraph 
illustrate  explana- 
tion of  subject  hy 
means  of  the  im- 
mediate caust  for 
discussion 


268 


APPENDIX 


Beauty     of    style 
produced  by  melody 


Beginning  of  the 
history  of  the  ques- 
tion. Note  par- 
ticularly that  in 
this  and  the  next 
paragraph  the  his- 
tory is  not  given 
in  detail  but 
sketched  rapidly 
and  yet  clearly 
enough  for  the 
purposes  of  ex- 
planation 


enter  into  relations  which  concern  not  only  its 
own  welfare,  but  the  welfare  of  other  races  as 
well. 

If  considerations  of  humanity  were  all,  the 
interest  of  the  American  people  in  Ireland  would 
still  be  great,  for  Ireland  has  been  a  suffering  na- 
tion for  generations.  The  principles  of  sympathy 
and  kindness  lead  us  instinctively  to  side  with 
the  under-dog.  But  there  are  other  considera- 
tions. Of  the  ninety  million  inhabitants  of  this 
republic  fully  ten  per  cent  are  Irish  or  of  Irish 
stock.  More  than  this,  the  fate  of  Ireland  is 
closely  bound  up  with  that  of  Great  Britain; 
and  Britain,  deep  down  in  the  sources  from  which 
nations  spring,  is  indissolubly  connected  with 
America, — in  lineage  and  history,  in  language 
and  literature,  in  laws  and  customs. 

In  order  that  we  may  intelligently  understand 
the  Home  Rule  struggle,  it  is  necessary  that  we 
review  rapidly  the  more  important  incidents 
which  have  led  up  to  it.  Ireland  was  a  nation, 
long,  long  ago,  with  a  king  and  council  of  her 
own.  She  had  a  civilization  and  a  literature 
long  before  England  had  dreamt  of  either.  But 
in  the  ups  and  downs  of  history  she  came  under 
the  sway  of  England.  She  did  not  take  readily 
to  English  rule  and  had  to  be  reconquered  several 
times.  Finally  in  1801,  her  last  parliament, 
which  had  been  running  for  less  than  twenty 
years,  was  combined  with  that  of  England  and 
the  last  vestiges  of  her  independence  were  swept 
away. 

If  Ireland  was  unhappy  before  because  she 
was  governed  by  an  alien  race,  a  race  which 
strove  to  repress  her  in  every  conceivable  way, 
she  was  no  less  so  after  her  parliament — her 
only  means  of  palliating  her  hard  lot — was  taken 
from  her.     She  passed  into  a  chronic  state  of 


APPENDIX 


269 


obstinate  rebellion.  So  serious  did  the  condition 
appear  to  Premier  Gladstone  that  twice  during 
his  career  he  endeavored  to  pass  a  Home  Rule 
bill  for  Ireland.  Both  attempts,  as  we  know, 
failed;  but  the  Irish  did  not  give  up  their  strug- 
gle. Finally,  in  April,  1912,  the  present  Home 
Rule  bill  was  introduced  in  Parliament  by- 
Premier  Asquith;  and  this,  by  the  provisions  of 
the  famous  Parliament  Act  of  1911,  which,  by 
the  way,  had  been  passed  with  the  express  pur- 
pose of  getting  such  radical  measures  as  the 
present  Home  Rule  bill  over  the  veto  of  the 
conservative  House  of  Lords,  passed  its  final 
stages  in  the  summer  of  1914.  Owing  to  the  war 
the  whole  struggle  had  to  be  suspended,  for  the 
bill,  pending  a  settlement  with  Ulster,  had  not 
yet  been  put  in  operation. 

The  parties  which  are  opposed  to  granting 
Home  Rule  to  Ireland  advance  some  weighty 
considerations  in  support  of  their  position. 
They  say  that  the  Irish  people  do  not  really  want 
Home  Rule,  inasmuch  as  they  give  the  Home 
Rule  cause  scant  moral  and  financial  support, 
that  most  of  the  support  comes  from  abroad, 
and  that  the  whole  agitation  is  mainly  the  work 
of  politicians  who  prey  upon  the  prejudices  of 
the  people  in  order  to  get  into  the  limelight;  that 
the  Irish  do  not  need  Home  Rule  inasmuch  as 
their  economic  condition  is  speedily  improving, 
as  their  growing  commerce  and  bank  accounts 
prove.  They  say,  further,  that  the  present 
Home  Rule  bill  will  aggravate  instead  of  im- 
prove the  condition  of  the  Irish  people,  for 
it  will  mean  increased  taxation  for  them,  without 
any  improvement  in  their  economic  condition; 
that  civil  war  is  bound  to  ensue  as  soon  as  Home 
Rule  takes  effect  since  Ulster  is  irreconcilable 
and  is  prepared  to  resist  by  armed  force  any 


End  of  the  hiitory 
of  the  question.  A 
definition  of  terms 
is  not  given. 
Querv:  Would 
a  paragraph  out- 
lining the  essen- 
tial features  of 
the  present  Home 
Rule  Bill  improve 
the  Introduction? 
Cf.  the  brief, 
Introd.,  IV.  A.  1. 


Beginning  of  thi 
conflict  of  opinion. 
This  and  the  suc- 
ceeding paragraph 
are  slightly  artifi- 
cial and  academic 


270 


Note  the  superior- 
ity of  this  begin- 
ning over,  ' '  The 
contentions  of  the 
negative  are,"  or 
any  similar 

phrase.  It  pro- 
duces beauty  of 
style  by  the  avoid- 
ance of  artificial 
phrase 


End  of  conflict  of 
opinion 


APPENDIX 

attempt  to  subject  her  to  an  Irish  parliament; 
and,  finally,  that  the  peace  of  the  entire  empire 
will  be  endangered,  for  Ireland  will  be  free  to  use 
her  peppery  tongue  in  criticizing  the  acts  of  the 
British  Government,  to  the  detriment  of  its 
interest  at  home  and  abroad — to  say  nothing  of 
the  open  threat  of  many  Irishmen  to  use  Home 
Rule  as  a  stepping-stone  to  complete  separation 
from  the  Empire. 

The  Home  Rulers,  on  the  other  hand,  are 
quite  as  sure  that  none  of  these  predictions  will 
prove  true  and,  in  return,  meet  objection  with 
objection.  They  reply  that  the  people  of  Ireland 
look  upon  Home  Rule  as  their  only  means  of 
salvation,  that  their  present  quiescence  is  but 
the  lull  of  expectation,  and  that  they  will  burst 
into  redoubled  fury  if  their  hopes  are  disap- 
pointed. They  say,  also,  that  England  is  en- 
tirely unfitted  to  govern  Ireland,  inasmuch  as 
she  is  an  alien  people  that  does  not  understand 
the  temper  of  the  Irish  or  their  needs;  that  if 
the  Irish  are  allowed  to  govern  themselves,  it 
will  satisfy  the  aspirations  they  have  had  these 
many  years  and  put  an  end  to  their  discontent; 
and  that  Irish  Home  Rule,  so  far  from  becoming 
a  detriment  to  the  peace  of  the  empire  will  prove 
a  blessing,  inasmuch  as  it  will  mean  less  work 
for  the  Westminster  Parliament,  and  will  serve 
as  a  guide  in  introducing  the  same  changes  in  the 
other  parts  of  the  United  Kingdom,  preparatory 
to  the  creation  of  a  federated  British  Empire. 

This  is  far  from  being  all  of  the  case  on  either 
side  of  the  question.  The  quarrel  has  been  long 
and  heated  and  very  intricate,  and  has  ramified 
into  many  departments  of  knowledge,  and 
drawn  its  illustrations  from  many  quarters  of 
the  globe;  yet,  in  the  main,  the  contest  has  been 
around  these  few  points. 


APPENDIX 


271 


Now  there  are  several  ways  in  which  we  may 
treat  the  question.  We  may  take  up  the  several 
items  on  either  side,  one  by  one,  and  consider 
each  exhaustively,  or  we  may  consider  only  these 
items  which  both  the  contestants  deem  impor- 
tant, or  we  may  examine  carefully  the  points  on 
either  side,  see  which  have  a  direct  bearing  on 
the  main  question,  eschew  such  as  are  indirect, 
and  consign  minor  points  to  a  subordinate  place. 
Plainly,  the  first  method  will  take  us  nowhere 
since  it  makes  use  of  no  common  threshing- 
ground;  the  second  is  obviously  partial  and  not 
thorough;  the  third  is  the  only  sensible  method 
and  the  one  which  we  must  use  if  we  would  ar- 
rive at  a  fair  and  just  solution. 

The  question  of  Ulster  is  a  secondary  one  for, 
since  Ulster  is  only  a  small  part  of  Ireland,  her 
objection  should  not  be  allowed  to  have  a  funda- 
mental bearing  on  a  measure  that  concerns  the 
whole  island.  The  desires  of  Ulster,  therefore, 
are  to  be  considered  under  the  general  topic,  the 
desires  of  all  Ireland.  England's  unfitness  to 
govern  Ireland,  too,  is  a  point  subordinate  to  the 
main  question:  Does  Ireland  need  self-govern- 
ment? We  must  also  omit  all  consideration  of  the 
present  Home  Rule  bill,  inasmuch  as  its  defects  do 
not  at  all  affect  the  desirability  of  granting  Home 
Rule  to  Ireland.  In  other  words,  that  one  Home 
Rule  bill  should  fail  in  alleviating  the  condition 
of  an  oppressed  people  is  no  reason  why  the 
condition  of  that  people  should  not  be  relieved. 

Moreover,  whether  or  not  federation  is  de- 
sirable for  the  United  Kingdom  is  a  question  too 
large  for  us  to  consider  here.  Besides,  it  is  not 
necessary  to  our  question  to  do  so.  Suffice  it 
to  say,  that  the  consensus  of  opinion  is  distinctly 
in  its  favor.  Both  Home  Rulers  and  Anti-Home 
Rulers  agree  that  it  is  the  goal  at  which  British 


This  paragraph  is 
somewhat  formal 
and  might  perhaps 
be  omitted 


Extraneous    and 
trivial  matter 


The  opposition 
viight  well  ques- 
tion this  arid  if 
they  desired,  criti- 
cize the  general 
features  of  the 
present  Home 

Rule  bill  as  typi- 
cal of  the  Home 
Rule  Principle 


Waived  matter 


272  APPENDIX 

politics  seem  to  be  pointing.  We  must  assume 
therefore  that  federation  is  to  all  intents  and 
purposes  a  desirable  thing  for  the  British  Empire 
and  treat  our  question  with  this  assumption  in 
mind. 

Sifting  the  case  thus,  we  begin  to  see  that  the 
contest  has  r^ged  around  three  points,  at  once 
simple  and  fundamental,   the  consideration  of 
which  is  necessary  to  a  solution  of  our  question: 
First, — Does  Ireland  want  Home  Rule? 
issues.    Could  be       Secoud, — Does  Ireland  need  Home  Rule? 
nM^e    ess  ar x  -       Third, — Will   Ireland   when   she   gets   Home 
Rule  be  a  detriment  to  the  interests  of  the 
British  Empire? 
o    .     .      .       ,      The  question  whether  or  not  Ireland  wants 

Beotnntng  of  proof.  ^  _  _ 

First  main  issue  Home  Rule  is  an  important  one,  for  if  Ireland 
does  not  want  Home  Rule,  it  would  be  utter 
folly  to  force  it  upon  her.  If  she  is  even  indif- 
ferent to  Home  Rule,  her  indifference  might  be 

^^IV^^l^Lf^yji'^    taken  as  proof  enough  that  she  does  not  want 

ment  from  causa  to  r'  o 

«•'?'"'  it,  that  she  is  satisfied  with  her  present  rule 

and  should  be  left  alone.  But  if,  in  our  search 
into  the  matter,  we  should  find  that  Ireland  has 
used  all  the  means  in  her  power  to  bring  about  a 
change  in  her  government,  we  shall  be  forced  to 
concede  that  she  does  want  Home  Rule. 

Now  there  are  but  two  ways  in  which  a  nation 
can  express  its  desire.  It  can  speak  to  the  govern- 
ment directly  through  its  representatives,  or  it 
can  by  its  attitude  toward  her  administration 
— friendly  or  hostile — show  its  pleasure  or  dis- 
pleasure with  it.  The  former  of  these  methods  is 
constitutional;  the  latter,  if  the  attitude  be  hos- 
tile, unconstitutional.  Frequently  an  oppressed 
nation  resorts  to  the  latter  when  it  finds  the 
former  ineffectual;  sometimes  it  uses  the  un- 
constitutional method  merely  to  emphasize  the 
constitutional.    Clearly  then,  if  we  are  to  solve 


facta 


APPENDIX  273 

our  question,  we  must  ask:  "How  has  Ireland 
made  use  of  these  two  ways  of  expressing  her- 
self? Has  she  used  the  constitutional  method 
to  show  that  she  wants  Home  Rule?  Has  she 
used  the  unconstitutional  method?"  Facts, 
not  opinions,  must  decide;  not  what  some  one 
thinks,  but  what  Ireland  has  said  and  done. 

Let  us  first  consider  the  unconstitutional 
means  which  Ireland  has  resorted  to  in  protest-  Evidence—state- 
ing  against  the  Act  of  Union.  In  1803,  almost  ment  of  historical 
immediately  after  the  Act  was  passed,  a  formid- 
able uprising  took  place,  headed  by  Robert 
Emmet.  Then  followed  a  tremendous  struggle 
for  Catholic  Emancipation  or  the  removal  of 
the  political  ban  which  prevented  the  Catholics 
from  holding  office.  Under  the  leadership  of  the 
celebrated  O'Connell,  the  CathoUc  Association 
became  strong  enough  to  carry  the  elections. 
The  Duke  of  Wellington,  victor  of  Waterloo, 
who  was  the  British  Prime  Minister  at  the  time, 
was  obliged  to  confess  that  the  king's  govern- 
ment could  no  longer  be  carried  on  and  he  had 
to  introduce  a  bill  granting  emancipation  in 
1829.  Then  followed  a  war  for  the  abolition  of 
the  tithe — a  tax  which  the  Encyclopcedia  Brit- 
tanica  calls  "the  most  oppressive  of  all  taxes." 
This  was  commuted  in  1838,  but  only  "in 
deference  to  clamor  and  violence." 

In  1848  there  was  another  considerable  up- 
rising; it  failed,  of  course;  but  one  of  the  men 
who  escaped  to  America  organized  a  formidable 
movement,  well  known  in  Irish  history  as  the 
Fenian  Brotherhood.  This  was  a  secret  society 
pledged  to  a  policy  of  terror.  Under  its  direc- 
tion many  criminal  outrages  were  committed 
in  England. 

In  1880  began  the  protest  against  the  eviction 
of  tenants  by  landlords.    Parliament  had  passed 


274 

This  paragraph 
shows  the  value  of 
the  concrete  illus- 
tration as  oppased 
to  the  abstract 
statement. 
Force 


Force  gained  hy 
concreteness  ex- 
pressed in  vivid 
terms.  Note  the 
prevalence  of  short 
Anglo-Saxon  words 


APPENDIX 

a  law  empowering  a  landlord  to  turn  out  a  tenant 
for  failure  to  pay  his  rent.  In  September  of 
that  year,  Parnell,  perhaps  the  most  eminent 
of  Irish  leaders,  made  a  speech  at  Ennis  in  which 
he  told  the  people  to  punish  a  man  for  taking  a 
farm  from  which  another  had  been  evicted  "by 
isolating  him  from  his  kind  as  if  he  was  a  leper  of 
old."  The  first  man  to  fall  under  the  curse  was 
a  Captain  Boycott  from  whom  the  system  took 
its  name.  A  description  of  its  working  by  a 
resident  of  Munster,  which  appeared  in  The 
Times  of  Nov,  5,  1885,  reads  in  part:— "Boy- 
cotting means  that  a  peaceable  subject  of  the 
Queen  is  denied  food  and  drink,  and  that  he  is 
ruined  in  his  business;  that  his  cattle  are  un- 
salable at  fairs;  that  the  smith  will  not  shoe  his 
horse  nor  the  carpenter  mend  his  cart;  that  old 
friends  pass  him  by  on  the  other  side,  making 
the  sign  of  the  cross;  that  his  children  are  hooted 
at  the  village  school;  that  he  sits  apart  like  an 
outcast  in  his  usual  place  of  public  worship:  all 
for  doing  nothing  but  what  the  law  says  he  has 
a  perfect  right  to  do."  "The  people,"  said 
the  report  of  the  Cooper  Commission  which 
inquired  into  the  system,  "are  more  afraid  of 
boycotting  than  they  are  of  the  judgment  of 
the  courts  of  justice."  It  was  in  this  way  that 
Ireland  showed  her  disapproval  of  one  law  that 
she  did  not  like. 

In  August,  1881,  Parliament  passed  an  Irish 
Land  Act  which  guaranteed  to  tenants  the  privi- 
leges of  free  sale  of  their  occupation  rights, 
security  of  tenure,  as  long  as  rent  was  paid,  and 
fair  rents.  The  Home  Rule  party  with  Parnell 
at  the  head  objected  to  the  Act  most  strenuously. 
Rent  or  no  rent,  there  was  to  be  no  e\action. 
Parnell  and  two  other  Irish  members  of  Parha- 
ment  were  thrown  into  gaol.     Crimes  became 


APPENDIX 


275 


frequent;  in  1881,  4,439  agrarian  outrages  were 
reported.  Cattle  were  cruelly  mutilated.  Sus- 
pects were  punished  and  imprisoned  by  the 
Irish  government,  but  still  the  outrages  con- 
tinued. Gladstone,  the  British  Prime  Minister 
at  the  time,  was  baffled  and  had  to  change  his 
pohcy.  He  ordered  the  release  of  Parnell  and 
his  companions  against  the  wishes  of  the  leading 
British  officials  at  Dublin,  who  promptly  re- 
signed. A  few  days  after  Parnell's  release,  on 
the  6th  of  May,  1882,  the  new  officials,  the  Lord 
Lieutenant  Lord  Frederick  Cavendish  and  his 
permanent  under-secretary,  Thomas  Henry 
Burke,  arrived  in  DubUn.  That  very  afternoon 
they  were  both  murdered  in  broad  daylight  in 
Phoenix  Park.  By  the  merest  accident  the  con- 
spiracy was  discovered.  Five  were  hanged  and 
others  sentenced  to  long  terms  of  imprisonment. 
The  informer,  on  his  way  to  South  Africa,  was 
murdered  on  board  the  ship  in  which  he  was 
travelling  by  an  Irishman  who  was  brought 
to  England  and  hanged  the  following  year. 

Even  to-day  lawlessness  and  violence  go  on. 
Policemen  have  a  hard  time  performing  their 
duty;  the  men  who  deliver  mail  often  need  to 
be  accompanied  by  the  poUce.  And  all  is  done 
with  the  deUberate  purpose  of  resisting  the  gov- 
ernment. Here  is  an  editorial  from  the  Irish 
Freedom,  quoted  by  the  London  Morning  Post 
of  October  7,  1912:  "To  conclude,  if  Home 
Rule  passes,  our  work  will  be  constructive.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  does  not  pass,  our  work 
will  be  destructive,  and  will  be  an  attack  all 
along  the  line  on  every  English  institution  in 
Ireland.  For  that  we  must  work— perhaps 
alone — but  if  possible,  in  league  with  England's 
enemies  within  and  without  the  Empire;  but 
whether  alone  or  with  outside  aid,  the  work 


More  convincing 
if  source  of  these 
figures  were  given 


Single  ttntenee 
gives  good  transi- 
tion from  para- 
graph to  para- 
graph thus  secur- 
ing coherence 


276 


APPENDIX 


Coherence 


Argument  of  fact 
from  authority 


Direct  application 
of  effect  deduced 
from     preceding 


Refutation 


will  be  undertaken  and  it  will  be  carried 
through." 

Remember,  too,  that  statements  and  acts 
such  as  these  were  not  and  are  not  to  be  attrib- 
uted to  any  isolated  section  of  the  people.  "In 
the  House  of  Commons,  on  the  24th  of  May, 
1882,"  says  the  Encyclopcedia  Britannica,  "Glad- 
stone said  that  boycotting  required  a  sanction 
like  every  other  creed,  and  that  the  sanction 
which  alone  made  it  effective  was  'the  murder 
which  is  not  to  be  denounced.'"  So  general 
were  acts  of  hostility  against  the  government 
that  they  could  not  be  called  criminal.  There  was 
something  radically  wrong  in  the  relations  which 
existed  between  the  Government  and  the  people. 

Do  these  acts  and  statements  show  satis- 
faction with  British  rule?  Do  they  show  in- 
difference? Who,  possessed  of  a  shadow  of  a 
knowledge  of  them,  can  still  presume  to  say  that 
Ireland  has  ever  been  satisfied  with  the  Act 
of  Union? 

How,  then,  some  one  asks,  was  the  Act  of 
Union  ever  passed?  To  understand,  we  must  go 
back  to  the  history  of  the  times. 

It  was  the  time  of  the  Great  Napoleon.  The 
successes  of  the  armies  of  the  mighty  Corsican 
were  a  source  of  constant  uneasiness  to  the 
English  across  the  Channel,  who  lived  in  fear 
of  an  invasion.  Ireland,  so  the  English  thought, 
would  offer  a  ready  foothold  to  the  invading 
foreigner.  The  Irish  rebellion  of  1798  was  fresh 
in  mind.  What  was  to  be  done?  The  obvious 
thing  to  do  was  to  invest  the  island  with  military 
forces,  but  this  could  not  conveniently  be  done 
with  an  Irish  Parliament  in  control.  Added  to 
the  military  situation  was  the  jealousy  of  the 
English  who  had  been  looking  with  an  evil  eye 
at   Ireland's   growing   prosperity   in   commerce 


APPENDIX 


277 


and  industry.  Pitt,  England's  Prime  Minister, 
proposed  to  emancipate  the  Catholics  who  could 
not  hold  any  public  office  on  account  of  their 
religion  on  condition  that  the  Irish  give  up  their 
Parliament.  Catholic  Emancipation  "was  a 
bribe  little  likely  to  appeal  to  the  Protestant 
minorit}^  which  constituted  the  Irish  Parliament." 
Even  if  the  Protestants  had  been  ready  to  accede 
to  Pitt,  the  transaction  could  not  be  said  to  have 
received  the  sanction  of  the  Irish  people.  But 
an  Orange  (Ulster)  resolution  of  the  time  ran 
thus:  "That  we  see  with  unspeakable  sorrow 
an  attempt  made  to  deprive  us  of  that  Constitu- 
tion, our  rising  prosperity,  and  our  existence  as 
a  nation,  and  reducing  us  to  the  degrading  situa- 
tion of  a  colony  of  England."  The  members  of 
the  Irish  Parliament  had  to  be  bought  over  in 
every  conceivable  way.  Thirty-two  of  those  who 
voted  for  the  Act  were  created  peers;  over  a 
hundred  were  given  government  positions;  and 
bribes  in  excess  of  two  million  dollars  were  used 
in  buying  votes.  Lord  Castlereagh,  who  sub- 
sequently committed  suicide,  was  said  to  have 
bought  over  twenty-five  members.  Byron  wrote 
of  him  v/hen  he  heard  of  his  fate : 

"So  Castlereagh  has  cut  his  throat! 

The  worst 
Of  this  is — that  he  cut  his  country's  the  first! 
So  he  has  cut  his  throat  at  last! 

He!    Who! 
The  man  who  cut  his  country's  long  ago." 

Pitt  got  his  way;  the  Irish  Parliament  was  amal- 
gamated with  that  of  England,  but  the  Catholics 
never  received  their  emancipation, — not  till  long 
afterward,  and  then  they  had  to  fight  for  it. 

The  Unionist  historian,  Lecky,  looking  back, 
was  forced  to  say  of  the  whole  transaction:  "It 


Paragraph 

unity 


lacks 


Force  produced  by 
concretenesa 


Admission  against 
interest 


278 


APPENDIX 


ArgumerU  from 
authority.  Note 
the  good  inirodue- 
lion  by  a  tingle 
phrase  of  each  of 
the  tteo  hittoriana 


Argument  from  ef- 
fect to  cause 

Force  by  repetition 


Argument    from 
authority 


was  a  crime  of  the  deepest  turpitude."  "The 
sacrifice  of  nationaUty  was  extorted  by  the  most 
enormous  corruption  in  the  history  of  represen- 
tative institutions."  Professor  Dicey,  a  prom- 
inent English  writer  on  jurisprudence  says:  "The 
Act  of  Union  was,  in  short,  an  agreement  which, 
could  it  have  been  referred  to  a  court  of  law,  must 
at  once  have  been  cancelled  as  a  contract  hope- 
lessly tainted  with  fraud  and  corruption."  Said 
Mr.  Gladstone:  "I  know  no  blacker  or  fouler 
transaction  in  the  history  of  man,  than  the  mak- 
ing of  the  Union  between  England  and  Ireland." 
These  facts  from  history  substantiated  by  state- 
ments from  men  whose  integrity  cannot  be  ques- 
tioned, two  of  whom  were,  if  anything,  prejudiced 
against  the  Home  Rule  cause,  prove  conclu- 
sively that  the  Act  of  Union  was  a  corrupt 
transaction  which  did  not  have  the  sanction  of 
the  Irish  people. 

The  protest  by  constitutional  means  has  been 
no  less  signal.  As  long  as  the  voting  population 
was  restricted,  the  Home  Rule  party  was  held 
in  abeyance.  In  1885  the  same  electoral  rights 
that  Great  Britain  enjoyed  were  extended  to 
Ireland.  What  happened?  The  Home  Rule 
party  in  Parliament,  which  under  Isaac  Butt  had 
numbered  fifty-four,  rose  suddenly  to  eighty- 
four, — eighty-four  out  of  a  total  Irish  repre- 
sentation of  103  members!  "This  almost  unani- 
mous plebiscitum  of  the  Irish  people  against 
the  legislative  union  with  Great  Britain,"  says 
the  Encyclopcedia  Brilannica  in  its  supplement 
to  the  ninth  edition,  "at  once  put  a  new  face 
upon  the  Irish  question.  It  was  not  merely  or 
chiefly  the  increased  power  to  obstruct  the 
course  of  imperial  legislation — but  the  declara- 
tion of  the  great  body  of  the  Irish  people  that 
they  regarded  the  union  as  an  intolerable  yoke 


APPENDIX 


279 


which  neither  they  nor  their  fathers  were  able 
to  bear."  The  spht  caused  by  Parnell's  downfall 
did  not  last.  The  Home  Rule  party  was  again 
consolidated  and  remained  firm  till  to-day.  In 
the  present  ParHament  86  members  out  of  the 
total  Irish  representation  of  103  are  Home 
Rulers. 

That  is  all  very  well,  says  some  one,  but  what 
about  Ulster?  You  cannot  deny  that  Ulster  is 
part  of  Ireland  and  that  she  is  almost  irrecon- 
cilably opposed  to  Home  Rule. 

Ulster,  in  reply,  is  indeed  part  of  Ireland  and 
is  opposed  to  Home  Rule.  But  she  is  only  a 
part.  Of  a  total  population  of  4,456,546  in- 
habitants in  1901,  1,581,351  belonged  to  Ulster, 
or  about  one  in  three.  But  note  carefully  that 
not  the  whole  of  the  population  of  Ulster  is 
opposed  to  Home  Rule,  for  of  the  33  members 
that  Ulster  sends  to  ParHament  only  17  are 
unionists.  In  other  words,  only  one-half  of  the 
people  of  Ulster  is  opposed  to  Home  Rule,  and 
this  one-half  constitutes  only  one-sixth  of  the 
total  population  of  the  island. 

Suppose  the  legislature  of  Massachusetts  to 
be  considering  a  bill  for  which  nearly  all  of  the 
people  of  that  state  are  clamoring,  and  the  repre- 
sentatives from  a  certain  district  which  contains 
one-sixth  of  the  population  to  oppose.  Could 
anything  be  more  absurd  than  to  say  that  the 
desire  of  the  whole  state  should  be  denied  because 
of  the  opposition  of  that  one  district?  Yet  this 
is  no  more  absurd  than  the  claim  of  the  Anti- 
Home  Rulers  that  Home  Rule  should  be  denied 
because  Ulster  opposes  it.  The  most  that  Ulster 
may  claim  is  to  be  herself  exempt,  and  even 
this  may  be  contested. 

But  why  does  Ulster  oppose  Home  Rule? 
Ulster  thinks  that  she  is  the  wealthiest  province 


Statement  of  prop- 
osition to  bt  re- 
futed 


Refutation 


Exposure  of  fal- 
lacy of  haaty  gen- 
eralization 


Argument    from 
analogy;  is  the 
analogy  goodt 


280 


Argument  by 
analogy  (figurative 
illustration) 
Incoherent 


Exposure   of  fal- 
lacy arising  from 
inaccurate     ob- 
servation 


APPENDIX 

in  Ireland  and  that  under  Home  Rule  undue 
burdens  of  taxation  would  be  imposed  upon  her. 
Granting  for  a  moment  that  Ulster  is  the  wealth- 
iest Irish  province,  is  it  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  she  will  therefore  be  taxed  unduly?  Would 
it  not  be  suicidal  for  a  Home  Rule  Parliament  to 
crush  her,  to  chop  off,  as  it  were,  the  branch  on 
which  it  sits,  to  kill  the  goose  that  lays  the 
golden  egg?  But  Ulster  is  far  from  being  as 
wealthy  as  she  claims.  A  prominent  article  in 
the  Westminster  Revieiv  of  October,  1912,  gives 
statistics  wliich  show  that  Ulster  ranks  third 
in  the  income-tax  assessment  of  the  island, 
Leinster  coming  first  with  an  assessment  of  S51 
per  inhabitant,  Munster  -wath  $30,  and  Ulster 
with  $28,  Connaught  being  the  only  province 
with  a  lower  assessment  than  Ulster.  This  fact 
as  to  Ulster's  wealth  is  corroborated  by  the 
valuation  of  the  ratable  property  of  the  island: 
statistics  show  that  the  average  value  of  the 
property  per  inhabitant  in  Leinster  and  Munster 
is  $20  and  $13  respectively,  while  the  average 
inhabitant  of  Ulster  owns  but  $12  worth  of 
property.  The  surmises  of  Ulster  on  this  score, 
therefore,  are  altogether  visionary.  Ulster  further 
fears  that,  industrial  as  her  economic  interests 
largely  are,  she  will  suffer  at  the  hands  of  a 
Parliament  that  must  in  the  main  be  agricul- 
tural, but  in  fearing  this,  Ulster  forgets  that  the 
rest  of  Ireland  wdll  not  be  long  content  to  remain 
altogether  agricultural,  that  it  is  only  a  matter  of 
time  when  the  economic  interests  of  the  island 
will  have  become  comparatively  uniform,  calling 
for  uniform  legislative  treatment.  Ulster  also 
fears  that  she  will  be  persecuted  by  Catholic 
Ireland  because  of  her  religion,  but  it  is  worthy 
of  note  that  Protestant  Ulster  has  been  far  more 
bigoted  and  intolerant  and  discriminating  than 


APPENDIX 


281 


the  rest  of  Ireland.  In  Belfast,  the  leading  city 
of  Ulster,  the  population  is  one-third  Catholic, 
but  only  9  of  the  437  salaried  officials  of  this 
city  are  Catholics,  and  only  $3,800  of  a  total 
sum  of  S340,000  are  paid  as  salaries  to  Catholics. 
In  the  provinces  where  Catholics  are  prepon- 
deratingly  in  the  majority,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  treatment  of  Protestants  is  almost  the  re- 
verse. Cities  in  these  provinces  have  repeatedly 
nominated  Protestant  mayors.  In  Derry,  al- 
though the  Catholics  are  in  a  large  majority, 
the  Corporation  pays  $33,000  in  salaries  to 
Protestant  officials,  and  only  $850  to  Catholics, 
without  any  regard  to  religion.  Parnell,  the 
greatest  Home  Rule  leader,  was  a  Protestant. 
Facts  such  as  these  show  that  religion  has  little 
or  nothing  to  do  with  the  nationahsm  of  the 
Catholics  of  Ireland,  that  public  life  among  them 
is  mainly  political,  and  that  the  fears  of  Ulster 
are  merely  the  qualms  of  an  uneasy  conscience. 

The  objection  is  also  made:  If  the  Irish  want 
self-government,  why  do  they  not  contribute  to 
the  support  of  the  Home  Rule  cause?  I  reply 
that  they  do.  Here  are  some  figures  from  the 
Cork  Free  Press  of  March  7,  1912,  which  that 
journal  is  using  to  incriminate  the  Home  Rule 
party.  "How  much  has  this  faction  made  out 
of  Ireland?  In  1909  it  received  £23,000;  in  1910 
it  received  £33,000;  last  year  it  received  £28,000. 
From  America  it  extracted  £40,000.  From  Aus- 
tralia according  to  yesterday's  Freeman  it  has 
got  £30,000.  From  the  British  Treasury  it  has 
got  £29,000."  This  certainly  does  not  sound 
as  if  the  Irish  were  so  niggardly  in  their  support 
of  the  Home  Rule  cause.  It  is  worthy  of  note, 
also,  that  the  "foreigners"  who  contribute  are 
none  others  than  emigrated  Irishmen. 

Viewed  in  the  Ught  of  these  facts,  the  objec- 


Argumentum 
hominem 


ad 


More  refutation 


Admissions 
against  interest 
and  undesigned 
testimony 


282 


APPENDIX 


Recapitulation   of 
first  issue 


Statement  of  Sec- 
ond Issue.  Note 
the  good  transition 
giving  coherence 
to  the  whole  com- 
position 


Should  not  this 
paragraph  be  short- 
ened or  omittedT 
It  does  not  seem 
to  advance  the  dis- 
cussion 


tion  to  Home  Rule  on  the  ground  that  the  Irish 
do  not  want  it  falls  flat.  History,  as  we  have 
seen,  testifies  that  the  Irish  people  did  not  have 
a  part  in  the  Act  of  Union,  and  that  they  have 
used  all  the  means  in  their  power,  both  consti- 
tutional and  unconstitutional,  to  protest  against 
it.  The  opposition  of  Ulster,  in  so  far  as  it  aims 
to  prevent  Home  Rule,  is,  according  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  democratic  majority  government,  mani- 
festly absurd;  and  her  fears  of  discrimination 
and  persecution  under  Home  Rule  are,  to  a  large 
extent,  imaginary  and  groundless.  And  lastly, 
the  charge  that  the  Irish  do  not  support  the 
Home  Rule  cause  with  their  means  is,  as  we  have 
seen,  unjustified.  From  all  this  we  infer  that 
if  there  has  been  anything  the  Irish  have  really 
wanted,  it  was  Home  Rule. 

Let  us  turn  now  to  the  question:  Does  Ireland 
need  Home  Rule?  This,  too,  like  the  last  is 
fundamental,  for  if  Ireland  does  not  need  Home 
Rule,  why  all  this  fuss  about  giving  it  to  her? 
But  how  are  we  to  tell  whether  she  needs  it  or 
not?  What  is  the  criterion  by  which  such  a 
need  is  to  be  judged? 

Plainly,  the  object  of  government  is,  or  should 
be,  the  welfare  of  the  governed.  This  is  a  prop- 
osition too  well  conceded  to  be  denied.  Some 
may  conceivably  contend  that  the  object  of  a 
despotic  government  is  not  the  welfare  of  the 
governed  but  of  the  rulers,  but  even  despots  have 
learned  that  the  welfare  of  the  governed  best 
contributes  to  their  own.  But  we  are  not  here 
concerned  with  despotic  governments.  We  who 
believe  in  the  democratic  principle  and  who 
partake  of  its  blessings  cannot  for  a  moment 
hesitate  to  grant  that  the  welfare  of  the  people  is 
the  true  object  of  government.  Believing  thus, 
we  are  forced  to  concede  that  a  government 


APPENDIX 


283 


which  fails  to  promote  the  happiness  of  the 
people  it  governs  has  failed  in  its  purpose  and 
needs  to  be  supplanted  by  one  more  adequate. 

The  criterion,  then,  by  which  we  are  to  judge 
Ireland's  need  of  Home  Rule  is:  Has  the  present 
form  of  government  by  a  Parliament  overwhelm- 
ingly British  succeeded  in  promoting  Irish  wel- 
fare? And  since  the  influence  of  government 
on  the  welfare  of  a  people  is  most  readily  seen 
in  industry,  our  question  resolves  itself  mainly 
into  a  consideration  of  the  effects  of  British  rule 
on  the  economic  life  of  the  Irish  people. 

Before  we  proceed  to  the  industrial  question 
it  might  be  well  for  us  to  note  the  racial  and 
other  differences  between  the  English  and  the 
Irish  and  the  results  which  have  flowed  from 
them — differences  which  in  part  explain  Eng- 
land's attitude  towards  Irish  industry,  and 
which  emphasize  England's  unfitness  to  govern 
Ireland.  The  Englishman  is  a  Saxon,  descended 
from  his  aggressive  Teutonic  forbears  of  northern 
Europe;  the  Irishman  is  a  Celt,  dwelling  from 
time  immemorial  in  the  land  he  now  occupies, 
comparatively  peaceful  and  quiet.  This  essen- 
tial difference  in  origin  connotes  a  difference  in 
habits  and  mental  outlook,  which  is  real.  To 
this  may  be  added  the  difference  in  religion. 
The  wars  of  religious  reformation  that  swept 
over  England  and  northern  Europe  left  Ireland 
untouched,  for  Ireland  had  little  in  common 
with  these  countries.  These  differences  and  the 
barbarities  they  led  to  were  emphasized  by  the 
relation  of  the  conqueror  and  conquered  which 
existed  between  the  two  countries  and  which 
opened  the  way  for  England  to  inflict  terrible 
atrocities  on  the  weaker  country,  which  her 
foreign  racial  and  rehgious  character  may  ex- 
plain, but  certainly  does  not  justify. 


Argument    from 
cause  to  effect 


Trite     expression 


284 


APPENDIX 


Cause  to  effect 


Undesigned   testi- 
mony 


England,  as  the  conqueror  and  ruler  of  Ireland, 
has  at  times  engaged  in  a  regime  of  unsurpassable 
cruelty  and  atrocity.  Elizabeth  sought  to  estab- 
lish Protestantism  in  Ireland  by  wholesale  ex- 
termination and  confiscation.  Speaking  of  Sir 
Walter  Raleigh's  operations  in  Munster,  Froude 
says:  "The  entire  province  was  utterly  depopu- 
lated. Hecatombs  of  helpless  creatures,  the 
aged  and  the  sick  and  the  bUnd,  the  young 
mother,  and  the  babe  at  the  breast  fell  under 
the  English  sword."  Another  writer  states  that 
one  gentleman  informed  the  good  queen  that  his 
friends  had  starved  30,000  to  death  by  destroy- 
ing the  crops.  Side  by  side  with  this  extermina- 
tion, the  confiscation  of  land  was  carried  on  in 
favor  of  English  and  Scotch  settlers.  Some  of 
the  new  landlords  never  set  foot  in  Ireland;  and 
thus  began  the  system  of  absentee  landlordism 
that  has  since  been  the  bane  of  Irish  peasant  life. 
Lord  Clare  who  with  Castlereagh  was  most  ac- 
tive in  bringing  about  the  Act  of  Union  declared 
that  upwards  of  11,600,000  acres  of  land  had  been 
forfeited  up  to  the  rebelhon  of  1798. 

Cromwell  offered  a  reward  of  $25  for  the  head 
of  every  Irish  priest.  Who  has  not  heard  of 
Drogheda?  Cromwell  had  besieged  this  town 
for  some  time  and  was  admitted  on  solemn 
promise  of  quarter.  He  waited  until  the  garri- 
son had  laid  down  their  arms  and  then  com- 
manded his  soldiers  to  begin  a  massacre  which 
lasted  for  five  days  and  was  attended  with  most 
savage  brutality.  In  his  official  report  to  Lon- 
don Cromwell  said  of  his  exploit:  "It  has  pleased 
God  to  bless  our  endeavors  at  Drogheda.  I  wish 
that  all  honest  hearts  may  give  the  glory  of  this 
to  God  alone,  to  whom  indeed  the  praise  of  this 
mercy  belongs.  I  believe  we  put  to  the  sword 
the  whole  number  of  defenders.    I  do  not  think 


APPENDIX  285 

thirty  of  the  whole  number  escaped  with  their 
lives;  those  that  did  are  in  safe  custody  for  the 
Barbadoes."  Of  the  bestial  massacre  of  three 
thousand  men,  women,  and  children  who  had 
taken  refuge  in  the  Cathedral  of  Cashel,  the 
historian  says:  "They  were  slaughtered  without 
discrimination.  Neither  rank,  dignity  nor  charac- 
ter saved  the  nobleman,  the  bishop  or  the  priest: 
nor  decrepitude  nor  his  hoary  head,  the  venerable 
sage  bending  down  into  the  grave;  nor  her  charms, 
the  virgin;  nor  her  virtues,  the  respectable  ma- 
tron; nor  its  helplessness,  the  smiling  infant. 
Butchery  was  the  order  of  the  day,  and  all  shared 
the  common  fate."  But  Cromwell  was  not 
satisfied  with  this;  he  ordered  the  exportation  of 
tens  of  thousands  of  captured  Irish,  among  whom 
were  women  and  children,  as  slaves  to  America 
and  the  West  Indies.  Thirty  thousand  were 
sold  to  the  American  colonists;  over  a  hundred 
thousand  to  West  Indian  planters.  Acts  such  as 
these  were  not  likely  to  increase  the  affection  of  the 
Irish  for  their  masters,  or  to  mitigate  their  misery. 
These  acts  fully  explain  the  failure  of  British 
government  in  Ireland,  a  failure  which  is  openly 
admitted.  Says  Sidney  Brooks,  a  prominent  fo'^a'^nLduSi^ 
English  writer  on  contemporary  politics,  in  an 
article  in  the  Fortnightly  Review  of  November, 
1911:  "It  is  their  (the  Irish)  misfortune  to  be 
governed  by  a  nation  that  is,  and  always  must 
be,  temperamentally  incapable  of  understanding 
them,  a  nation  that  has  made  in  Ireland  its  one 
grand  administrative  failure."  Again,  he  says: 
"It  is,  indeed,  the  supreme  defect  of  our  govern- 
ment in  Ireland  that  it  has  failed  to  win  the  causes  stated  in 
trust  and  good  will  and  co-operation  of  the  ^apha^"  ^™" 
Irish  people.  It  is  just  as  much  an  alien  govern- 
ment to  them,  just  as  out  of  touch  with  all  their 
quahties,    instincts,    characteristics   and   points 


286  APPENDIX 

of  view  that  make  them  a  different  people,  as 
would  be  a  German  government  in  England." 

Without  stopping  to  detail  any  further  atroci- 
ties, let  us,  with  these  facts  in  mind,  proceed  to 
consider  the  effects  of  British  rule  on  Irish  in- 
dustry. The  indictment  I  bring  against  the 
English  people  is  not  only  that  they  have  failed 
to  promote  Irish  welfare,  but  that  they  have 
set  themselves  deliberately  to  repress  and  to 
destroy  by  legislation  every  Irish  industry  that 
has  arisen.  This  repressive  policy  had  been 
diligently  pursued  from  very  early  times.  As 
fjittMUhirimlle  early  as  1640  the  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Ireland 
wrote  the  king:  "I  am  of  opinion  that  all  wisdom 
advises  to  keep  Ireland  dependent  on  England 
as  long  as  is  possible,  and  stopped  from  the 
manufacture  of  wool."  The  Earl  of  Nottingham 
said  that  the  object  of  EngHsh  rule  in  Ireland 
was  "to  cramp,  obstruct  and  render  abortive  the 
industry  of  the  Irish."  In  1867  Lord  Dufferin 
wrote:  "From  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth, 
England  never  for  a  moment  relaxed  her  relent- 
f^in  ^mix  maa-  less  grip  on  the  trades  of  Ireland.  One  by  one 
^'""■^^  her  industries  were  strangled  until  at  last  every 

fountain  of  wealth  was  hermetically  sealed." 

Deprived  of  the  ownership  of  their  land,  the 
Irish  began  to  build  up  industries.  They  first  en- 
gaged in  cattle-raising  and  in  shipping  the  meat 
to  the  continent.  Embargoes  were  promptly 
placed  by  the  British  on  the  exportation  of 
Irish  cattle,  pigs  and  sheep.  Then  the  Irish 
turned  to  the  woollen  trade.  Of  this  the  Unionist 
historian  Lecky  says:  "A  real  industrial  en- 
thusiasm had  arisen  in  the  nation.  Many 
thousands  of  men  were  employed  in  the  trade, 
and  all  the  signs  of  a  great  rising  industry  were 
visible."  But  the  English  Parliament  petitioned 
the  king;  and  in  1699  the  exportation  of  woollen 


APPENDIX 


287 


manufactures  was  absolutely  prohibited.  "So 
ended,"  says  the  historian,  "the  fairest  promise 
Ireland  had  ever  had  of  becoming  a  prosperous 
and  happy  country.  The  ruin  was  absolute  and 
final."  The  same  thing  was  repeated  with  the 
linen  industry.  Meanwhile  the  Irish  merchant 
marine  had  been  destroyed  by  repressive  naviga- 
tion acts.  The  distress  of  the  people  was  at  times 
pitiable  in  the  extreme.  "I  have  seen,"  says 
Bishop  Berkeley,  the  well-known  philosopher, 
"  the  laborer  endeavoring  to  work  at  the  spade, 
but  fainting  from  want  of  food,  and  forced  to 
quit  it.  I  have  seen  the  aged  father  eating 
grass  like  a  beast,  and  in  the  anguish  of  his  soul 
wishing  for  his  dissolution.  I  have  seen  the 
helpless  orphan  exposed  on  the  dunghill,  and 
none  to  take  him  in  from  fear  of  infection,  and 
the  hungry  infant  sucking  at  the  breast  of  the 
already  expired  parent."  And  so  the  miserable 
story  continues — one  long  record  of  atrocious 
oppression,  unreUeved  by  any  acts  of  mercy. 

Last  fall  a  writer  visited  a  National  Exhibition 
of  Irish  industries  in  Dublin.  He  writes  that 
"the  real  Irish  showing  was  pitiful;  scarcely  a 
single  article  of  industry  shown,  aside  from  agri- 
culture, raw  material  or  minerals,  was  made  in 
Ireland.  All  wares  bore  English  or  Continental 
trade-marks." 

To  corroborate  these  statements  I  cite  from 
the  Encyclopcedia  Britannica,  eleventh  edition: 
"The  restraints  placed  by  English  commercial 
jealousy  on  Irish  trade  destroyed  manufacturing 
industry  in  the  south  and  west.  Driven  by  the 
Caroline  legislation  against  cattle  into  sheep- 
breeding,  Irish  graziers  produced  the  best  wool 
in  Europe.  Forbidden  to  export  it,  or  to  work  it 
up  profitably  at  home,  they  took  to  smuggling 
for  which  the  indented  coast  offers  great  faciU- 


Force  gained  by 
concrete  xllustra- 
tions 


AuthorUy 


288 


APPENDIX 


Good  transition 
giving  coherence  to 
the  paragraph 


Argument  by 
analogy 


Statistics  made 
clear  by  concrete 
application 


ties."  Again,  "Irish  political  history  has  largely 
affected  the  condition  of  agriculture.  Confisca- 
tions and  settlements,  prohibitive  laws  (such  as 
those  which  ruined  the  woollen  industry),  penal 
enactments  against  the  Roman  Catholics,  ab- 
senteeism, the  creation  for  political  purposes  of 
40s.  freeholders,  and  other  factors  have  combined 
to  form  a  story  which  makes  painful  reading 
from  whatever  point  of  view,  social  or  pohtical, 
it  is  regarded." 

Nor  have  the  effects  of  British  rule  on  agricul- 
ture, the  one  unmolested  industry''  of  the  Irish, 
been  any  too  salutary.  Says  the  Encyclopaedia 
Britannica  in  its  supplement  to  the  ninth  edition: 
"The  industrial  statistics  of  the  island  are  as 
discouraging  as  those  of  population.  The  one 
great  industry  is  agriculture.  With  every  year 
the  area  under  tillage  diminishes.  Twice  since 
1881  there  have  been  severe  local  famines,  al- 
though the  island  produces  food  far  in  excess  of 
the  needs  of  its  people." 

The  objection  to  Home  Rule  on  the  ground 
that  the  Irish  do  not  need  it  since  their  com- 
merce and  bank  accounts  are  increasing  is,  in 
the  light  of  such  evidence,  trivial.  Any  rise, 
even  from  nothingness,  is  still  a  rise,  but  does  not 
necessarily  prove  industrial  prosperity.  Belgium, 
with  a  population  of  7,400,000,  less  than  twice 
that  of  Ireland,  had  in  1913,  a  foreign  export 
trade  a  hundred  times  as  great, — $675,000,000 
to  Ireland's  $6,500,000;  while  Holland,  with  a 
population  one-third  greater  than  Ireland,  had 
in  the  same  year  a  foreign  export  trade  of  $1,020,- 
000,000—150  times  that  of  Ireland.  Moreover, 
the  bulk  of  Irish  trade,  apart  from  foreign,  is 
with  England  and  consists  in  the  exchange  of 
farm  products  for  manufactures,  an  exchange  in 
every  way  beneficial  to   English  interest  and 


APPENDIX 


289 


derogatory  to  that  of  the  Irish,  since  the  English 
with  their  larger  money  incomes  are  the  gainers, 
and  the  Irish  with  their  lessened  food  supply 
are  in  constant  danger  of  privation  and  famine. 
And  whatever  increase  in  the  savings  of  the 
Irish  there  may  have  been,  may  be  amply  ac- 
counted for  by  the  remittances  which  their  rela- 
tives across  the  seas  constantly  make  to  them. 

The  decrease  in  population  has  been  phenom- 
enal. In  1841  the  population  of  Ireland  (I  take 
my  figures  for  comparison  from  Chambers' 
Encyclopcedia)  was  8,175,124;  in  1891  this  had 
decreased  to  4,706,162,  a  decrease  of  nearly  one- 
half;  while  in  the  corresponding  period,  the 
population  of  Scotland  rose  from  2,620,184  to 
4,025,647,  or  nearly  doubled.  The  census  of 
1911  shows  a  further  decrease  in  Ireland  to 
4,381,951  and  this  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the 
annual  birth-rate  had  exceeded  the  death-rate 
by  over  twenty  per  cent.  I  do  not  blame  entirely 
on  the  government  the  tremendous  emigration 
that  has  caused  the  depopulation.  A  large  share 
of  it  may  have  been  due  to  over-population.  But 
a  still  larger  share  must  have  been  due  to  the 
precarious  industrial  condition  of  the  country 
and  to  the  evictions  of  tenants  by  landlords, 
and  for  these,  as  we  have  seen,  the  goverrmient 
is  responsible.  Surely,  there  is  no  excess  of 
population  now  if  we  compare  Ireland  with 
England,  a  country  which  had  a  density  four 
times  as  great  as  Ireland,  but  still  the  depopula- 
tion continues.  Had  Ireland  been  reduced  to 
silence,  as  any  people  less  pugnacious  would 
have  been,  we  should  have  been  forcibly  re- 
minded of  the  Latin  historian  who  said  of  the 
Romans:  "They  make  a  desert  and  call  it  peace." 

It  is  a  gloomy  page  which  tells  of  the  political 
and  industrial  life  of  Ireland  under  English  rule. 


Refutation 


Argument    of   ef- 
fect to  cause 


290 

Summary  of 
second  issue 


Incoherent 
tence 


Transition  not  as 
good  as  when  the 
writer  took  up  the 
second  issue 


Refutation 


Cause  to  effect 


APPENDIX 

England,  as  the  conqueror  of  Ireland,  has  ruled 
with  an  iron  hand  in  a  way  little  short  of  savage 
tyranny;  as  Ireland's  legislator,  she  has  used 
every  means  in  her  power  in  effectually  blocking 
the  avenues  to  industrial  prosperity,  with  a 
consequent  destruction  of  Irish  industry,  and  a 
decimation  of  Irish  population  unparalleled  in 
modern  history.  The  motives  which  have 
guided  England  in  her  poUcy  have  been  partly 
commercial,  partly  religious  and  race  rivalry. 
The  great  wrongs  which  Ireland  has  suffered 
call  aloud  for  reparation.  England  has  signally 
failed  as  a  ruler  in  promoting  Irish  welfare,  and 
the  only  thing  she  can  do  to  atone  in  a  measure 
for  her  unjustifiable  treatment  is  to  make  Ireland 
autonomous  and  allow  her  to  work  out  her  own 
destiny. 

Let  us  proceed  now  to  the  imperial  question: 
Will  Ireland  prove  a  detriment  to  the  Empire 
when  she  gets  Home  Rule? 

Wherein  can  a  part  of  a  federated  empire  be 
a  drag  to  it?  By  maintaining  a  policy  of  hos- 
tihty,  by  attempting  to  separate,  and  by  refus- 
ing to  carry  out  its  share  of  the  agreement.  Will 
Ireland  be  inclined  to  do  any  of  these? 

If  Ireland  continues  to  show  the  same  attitude 
she  has  manifested  all  along,  she  will  certainly 
prove  a  drag  on  the  empire.  But  will  she  be 
likely  to  continue  it?  When  the  cause  of  hos- 
tihty  is  removed,  is  it  not  more  likely  that  hos- 
tility will  also  cease?  We  should  remember 
that  when  Home  Rule  is  granted,  the  Home  Rule 
party,  the  party  of  agitation,  will  have  ceased 
to  exist  since  its  task  will  have  ended.  Those 
who  assume  that  when  Ireland  has  received 
Home  Rule,  she  will  consider  it  her  duty  to  give 
England  all  the  trouble  she  can,  are  also  assum- 
ing that  the  old  feud  and  hostility  will  continue. 


APPENDIX 


291 


They  should  remember  that  Ireland  will  have 
too  much  to  do  at  home  to  think  of  making 
trouble  abroad;  that  she  will  have  the  eyes  of 
all  the  world  on  her,  watching  to  see  how  she 
will  use  her  responsibility — a  factor  which  can- 
not but  exert  a  steadying  influence.  They  should 
remember,  too,  that  Natal  which,  fourteen  years  Argument  from 
ago,  was  England's  bitterest  foe,  is  now  a  most  "■^"■^ooy 
loyal  colony;  that  the  man  who  then  led  the 
armies  of  the  Boers  is  now  a  governor  under 
England's  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Af- 
fairs;— and  all  by  a  poUcy  of  liberality.  Is  it 
not  reasonable  to  expect  that  Ireland,  more  in- 
timately connected  with  England  in  every  way, 
win  adopt  a  similar  attitude? 

It  is  not  likely  that  Ireland  will  want  to  sepa- 
rate either.  Separate  to  do  what?  She  has  no 
colonies,  no  foreign  trade,  no  navy  to  protect  fakm^causarit 
herself.  WiU  it  not  be  very  much  against  her  '"'*'"* 
interest  to  separate?  England  is  at  present  her 
sole  commercial  support;  what  will  Ireland  do 
with  all  the  produce  if  she  separates.  New 
markets  take  a  long  time  to  find.  Will  not 
separating  mean  a  death-blow  to  Ireland's  trade, 
even  if  England  were  willing  to  stand  by  and 
see  her  do  it?  Furthermore,  the  great  leaders 
of  the  Home  Rule  party  have  been  avowed 
federalists.  Here  are  Parnell's  words  before 
the  Parnell  Commission  on  May  1,  1899:  "I 
have  never  gone  further,  either  in  my  thought  Attempt  at  gener- 
or  actions,  than  the  restitution  of  the  legisla- 
tive independence  of  Ireland."  Here  is  what 
Mr.  Redmond  said  in  his  speech  on  the  second 
reading  of  the  present  Home  Rule  Bill,  May  9, 
1912.  He  quotes  a  speech  he  had  made  in 
1886  and  proceeds:  "Therefore,  I  say,  that  all 
ray  life  I  have  been  a  federalist,  and  I  welcome 
the  declaration  that  this  is  the  first  step  in  a 


alization 


292  APPENDIX 

great  system  of  federation."  Why  not  take  such 
sentiments  at  their  face  value  than  be  unreason- 
able prophets  of  evil? 

So  far  from  being  a  drag  on  the  Empire,  it  is 
reasonable  to  expect  that  Ireland  will  contribute 
to  its  well-being.  There  is  no  question  but  that 
the  prosperity  of  the  component  parts  of  an 
empire  conduces  to  the  success  and  prosperity 
of  the  empire  itself.  This  prosperity,  so  far  as 
Ireland  is  concerned,  is  far  more  likely  to  come 
under  Home  Rule  than  under  the  present.  Says 
the  historian  Lecky:  "From  the  concession  of 
Effett  to  cause        j^^^  ^^.^j^  j^  ^779  ^^  ^^^  rebellion  of  1798,  the 

rational  progress  of  Ireland  was  rapid  and  uninter- 
rupted. In  ten  years  from  1782  the  exports  more 
than  trebled."  Needless  to  say  these  were  the 
years  immediately  preceding  the  Act  of  Union, 

t^\ocf  ^"^  ^^''^'  when  the  local  Parliament  was  in  full  swing. 

At  the  present  time  not  only  does  Ireland 
give  the  administration  a  great  deal  of  trouble, 
but  her  revenue  does  not  always  balance  with 
her  expenditure,  and  the  deficit  has  to  be  paid 
out  of  the  imperial  treasury.  The  Irish  Inde- 
pendent of  November  11, 1912,  gives  the  estimated 
revenue  and  expenditure  of  Ireland  for  that  year 
in  detail.  This  estimate  makes  the  total  expendi- 
ture £12,381,500,  the  total  revenue  £10,850,000, 
with  a  deficit  of  £1,531,500.    ^Vhen  under  Home 

questiont  Rule  industry  begins  to  flourish  again,  Ireland 

will  not  only  pay  her  own  way,  but  will  be  able 
also  to  contribute  to  the  support  of  the  Empire. 
A  Home  Rule  Parliament  will  benefit  the  Em- 
pire in  other  ways.  At  the  present  time  the 
Westminster  Parliament  has  to  consider  the 
local  needs  of  every  part  of  the  United  Kingdom; 
consequently,  it  has  a  great  deal  more  than  it 
can  do.  With  the  local  affairs  of  Ireland  off  its 
hands — a  task  which  it  has  filled  so  ill  these 


APPENDIX 


293 


many  years — the  British  ParHament  will  have 
a  great  deal  more  time  to  devote  to  more  vital 
concerns.  The  Irish  representation  in  the  Parlia- 
ment will  also  discontinue  its  filibustering  both 
on  account  of  lack  of  necessity  to  continue  it 
and  on  account  of  its  greatly  decreased  numbers. 

Furthermore,  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  Irish 
Home  Rule  is  the  forerunner  of  a  system  of 
federation,  with  local  parliaments  for  England, 
Scotland,  Wales,  and  Ireland,  each  contributing 
men  to  form  an  imperial  ParUament.  Such  a 
federation,  in  which  the  great  colonies  across 
the  seas  will  be  asked  to  join,  will  allow  for  the 
free  interplay  of  local  needs,  while  conserving 
and  consolidating  the  interest  of  the  Empire  as 
never  before.  The  success  of  the  plan  in  this 
great  republic,  the  country  that  first  adopted  it 
in  modern  times,  and  in  Canada,  Australia  and 
the  German  Empire,  gives  strong  reasons  for 
the  hope  that  it  will  work  well  in  the  British 
Empire  also. 

Last  but  not  least.  Home  Rule  will  directly 
contribute  to  the  foreign  interests  of  the  Empire 
by  enlisting  the  good  will  of  the  Irish  and  their 
descendants  abroad  in  favor  of  the  Empire.  At 
the  present  time  this  good  will  is  alienated  from 
Great  Britain.  Irishmen  look  upon  England  as 
their  foe.  Suppose,  for  instance,  American  re- 
lations with  England,  where  it  is  important 
for  England  to  win:  with  German  sentiment 
opposed  and  the  Irish  alienated,  is  it  difficult  to 
see  what  becomes  of  England's  case?  Here  is 
a  statement  by  Earl  Grey,  the  Secretary  of  State 
for  Foreign  Affairs,  recently  uttered  in  the  House 
of  Commons:  "The  good  will  of  the  Irish  race  is 
worth  having.  It  counts  for  something  in  every 
part  of  the  world  that  we  care  most  for."  When 
Home  Rule  is  granted  and  the  cause  of  hostility 


Does  the  writer  lay 
himself  open  to  at- 
tack in  this  para- 
graph f 


Undesigned 
timony 


294 


APPENDIX 


Summary  of  {hird 
issue 


removed,  is  it  not  likely  that  this  good  will  will 
be  shown  towards  the  Empire? 

The  objection  to  Home  Rule,  then,  on  the 
grounds  that  it  will  be  disadvantageous  to  the 
Empire  is  unreasonable,  for  Ireland  will  cease  to 
be  hostile  for  the  cause  of  her  hostility  will  have 
been  removed;  Ireland,  further,  will  not  want 
to  separate  from  the  empire  for  it  will  be  against 
her  interest  to  do  so.  It  is  more  reasonable  to 
expect  that  Home  Rule  for  Ireland  will  prove 
an  advantage  to  the  Empire,  since  it  will  tend 
to  increase  Irish  prosperity,  it  will  relieve  Parlia- 
ment of  a  great  deal  of  work,  it  will  serve  as  a 
guide  in  bringing  about  federation,  and  enlist 
Irish  sentiment  abroad  in  favor  of  the  Empire. 

To  sum  up,  the  objection  to  Home  Rule  on 
the  ground  that  the  Irish  do  not  want  it  is  utterly 
Slightly  base  and  unfounded,  since  for  the  past  hundred 
years  and  more  they  have  never  ceased  from 
rebelling  against  British  Rule,  while  at  the  same 
time  they  have  made  full  use  of  the  constitu- 
tional means  in  their  power.  The  investigation 
of  the  claim  that  the  Irish  do  not  need  Home 
Rule  has  disclosed  the  great  wrongs  that  the 
British  people  have  heaped  upon  the  Irish  both 
politically  and  economically,  and  has  emphasized 
the  unfitness  of  the  English  to  govern  Ireland  and 
the  consequent  need  of  Ireland  to  govern  herself. 
The  pessimistic  prophecies  to  the  effect  that 
Home  Rule  will  be  disastrous  to  the  Empire  have 
appeared  hollow  and  unreasonable  on  considera- 
tion ;  and  quite  the  reverse  has  been  seen  to  be  the 
more  likely  to  take  place.  From  all  this  we  have 
concluded  that  Ireland  should  have  Home  Rule. 

In  this  statement  of  the  case  of  Ireland  I  have 

studiously   avoided   all   unnecessary   flourishes, 

because  I  have  felt  that  the  bare,  unvarnished 

Hackneyed  phrase   ^^^^^  ^^^  eloquent  enough  to  rouse  the  righteous 


Beginning  of  con 

elusion. 

artificial 


Recapitulation 


APPENDIX 


295 


indignation  of  the  entire  civilized  world.  To 
goad  a  peaceful  and  God-fearing  nation  into 
criminality  and  despair;  to  cow  the  spirits  of 
that  nation  by  repeated  and  tyrannous  subjuga- 
tion; to  deprive  that  nation  of  its  God-given  right 
of  utilizing  for  its  own  progress  its  mental  and 
physical  resources, — these  are  faults,  to  say  the 
least,  deserving  of  the  severest  censure.  The 
civihzed  world  has  long  since  placed  its  ban  on 
an  institution  which  held  in  its  fetters  an  unfor- 
tunate race  whose  place  in  society  has  not  yet 
been  definitely  determined.  But  here  is  a  race 
whose  abihties  have  entitled  it  to  a  place  among 
the  highest,  a  race  which  has  contributed  such 
wholesome  natures  as  Bishop  Berkeley,  Jonathan 
Swift,  Thomas  Moore,  Edmund  Burke,  and 
Oliver  Goldsmith  into  the  vocabulary  of  our 
common  knowledge, — shall  we  stand  aside  and 
see  such  a  race  degraded  and  dragged  in  the 
dust  forever?  Is  not  such  a  race  deserving  of  the 
sympathy  and  just  regard  of  all  mankind? 

It  is  the  duty  of  the  strong  to  support  the 
weak,  not  crush  them;  it  is  the  duty  of  the  rich 
to  assist  the  poor,  not  fleece  them;  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  wise  to  instruct  the  ignorant,  not  despise 
them.  In  this  higher  duty  the  British  people 
have  been  entirely  lacking  in  their  relations 
with  Ireland.  In  presenting  this  case  to  the 
American  people  it  is  to  this  higher  sense  of  duty 
that  I  appeal,  to  their  nobility  of  nature,  their 
justice  and  their  love  of  fair  play.  When  a 
nation  has  fought  so  long  and  so  tenaciously 
as  the  Irish  have  done,  when  that  nation  has 
suffered  such  gross  and  insufferable  wrongs,  when 
the  cause  for  which  that  nation  has  struggled 
has  been  in  such  thorough  accord  with  higher 
aims,  and  higher  interests,  should  we  at  all  hesi- 
tate in  deciding  in  its  favor? 


Good  balance 
Climax 


Final  paragraphs 
intentionally  per- 
suasive. Actual 
conviction  prac- 
tically ended  in 
preceding  para- 
graph 


Good    use    of  the 
rhetorical  question 


Antithesis 


AGAINST  CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT  ^ 

Maximilien  Robespierre 

When  the  news  was  brought  to  Athens  that  Athenian  citizens 
had  been  sentenced  to  death  in  the  town  of  Argos,  the  people 
hastened  to  the  temples  to  implore  the  gods  to  divert  the  Athen- 
ians from  thoughts  so  cruel  and  so  baleful.  I  come  to  urge,  not 
the  gods,  but  the  legislators,  who  should  be  the  organ  and  the 
interpreters  of  the  eternal  laws  the  Divinity  has  dictated  to  men, 
to  strike  from  the  French  code  the  laws  of  blood,  which  command 
judicial  murder — which  are  repugnant  to  their  habits  and  their 
new  Constitution.  I  will  prove  to  them:  First,  that  the  death 
penalty  is  essentially  unjust;  secondly,  that  it  is  not  the  most 
repressive  of  punishments,  but  that  it  increases  crimes  much 
more  than  it  prevents  them. 

Outside  of  civil  society,  let  an  inveterate  enemy  attempt  to 
take  ray  life,  or,  twenty  times  repulsed,  let  him  again  return  to 
devastate  the  field  my  hands  have  cultivated,  as  I  can  only  op- 
pose my  individual  strength  to  his,  I  must  perish  or  I  must  kill 
him,  and  the  law  of  natural  defence  justifies  and  approves  me. 
But  in  society,  when  the  strength  of  all  is  armed  against  one 
single  individual,  what  principle  of  justice  can  authorize  it  to 
put  him  to  death?  What  necessity  can  there  be  to  absolve  it? 
A  conqueror  who  causes  the  death  of  his  captive  enemies  is  called 
a  barbarian!  A  man  who  causes  a  child  that  he  can  disarm  and 
punish,  to  be  strangled,  appears  to  us  a  monster!  A  prisoner 
that  society  convicts  is  at  the  utmost  to  that  society  but  a  van- 
quished, powerless,  and  harmless  enemy.  He  is  before  it  weaker 
than  a  child  before  a  full-grown  man.  Therefore,  in  the  eyes  of 
truth  and  justice,  these  death  scenes  which  society  orders  with  so 
much    preparation   are    but    cowardly   assassinations — solemn 

1  Delivered  in  the  French  Constituent  Assembly,  May  30,  1791. 

297 


298  APPENDIX 

crimes  committed,  not  by  individuals,  but  by  entire  nations,  with 
due  legal  forms. 

However  cruel,  however  extravagant  these  laws  may  be,  be  not 
astonished.  They  are  the  handiwork  of  a  few  tyrants;  they  are 
the  chains  with  which  they  load  down  humankind;  they  are  the 
arms  with  which  they  subjugate  them!  They  were  written  in 
blood!  "It  is  not  permitted  to  put  to  death  a  Roman  citizen" — 
this  was  the  law  that  the  people  had  adopted;  but  Sylla  con- 
quered and  said:  "All  those  who  have  borne  arms  against  me 
deserve  death."  Octavius,  and  the  companions  of  his  misdeeds, 
confirmed  this  law.  Under  Tiberius,  to  have  praised  Brutus  was 
a  crime  worthy  of  death.  Caligula  sentenced  to  death  those  who 
were  sacrilegious  enough  to  undress  before  the  image  of  the  em- 
peror. When  tyranny  had  invented  the  crimes  of  lese-majesti 
(which  might  be  either  trivial  acts  or  heroic  deeds),  he  who 
should  have  dared  to  think  that  they  could  merit  a  hghter 
penalty  than  death  would  himself  have  been  held  guilty  of  lese- 
majestL 

When  fanaticism,  born  of  the  monstrous  union  of  ignorance 
and  despotism,  in  its  turn  invented  the  crimes  of  Use-majeste 
against  God — when  it  thought,  in  its  frenzy,  to  avenge  God 
himself — was  it  not  obhged  to  offer  him  blood  and  to  place  him 
on  the  level  of  the  monsters  who  called  themselves  his  images? 

The  death  penalty  is  necessary,  say  the  partisans  of  antiquated 
and  barbarous  routine!  Without  it  there  is  no  restraint  strong 
enough  against  crime.  Who  has  told  you  so?  Have  you  reck- 
oned ;;vdth  all  the  springs  through  which  penal  laws  can  act  upon 
human  sensibility? 

The  wish  to  hve  gives  way  to  pride,  the  most  imperious  of  all 
the  passions  which  dominate  the  heart  of  man.  The  most  terrible 
punishment  for  social  man  is  opprobrium;  it  is  the  overwhelming 
evidence  of  public  execration.  When  the  legislator  can  strike  the 
citizens  in  so  many  places  and  in  so  many  ways,  how  can  he  be- 
lieve himself  reduced  to  employ  the  death  penalty?  Punish- 
ments are  not  made  to  torture  the  guilty,  but  to  prevent  crime 
from  fear  of  incurring  them. 

The  legislator  who  prefers  death  and  atrocious  punishments  to 
the  mildest  means  within  his  power  outrages  pubUc  delicacy,  and 


APPENDIX  299 

deadens  the  moral  sentiment  of  the  people  he  governs,  in  a  way 
similar  to  that  in  which  an  awkward  teacher  brutalizes  and 
degrades  the  mind  of  his  pupil  by  the  frequency  of  cruel  chastise- 
ments. In  the  end,  he  wears  and  weakens  the  springs  of  govern- 
ment, in  trying  to  bend  them  with  greater  force. 

The  legislator  who  estabhshes  such  a  penalty  renounces  the 
wholesome  principle  that  the  most  efficacious  method  of  repres- 
sing crimes  is  to  adapt  the  punishments  to  the  character  of  the 
various  passions  which  produce  them,  and  to  punish  them,  so  to 
speak,  by  their  own  selves.  He  confounds  all  ideas,  he  disturbs 
all  connections,  and  opposes  openly  the  object  of  all  penal  laws. 

The  penalty  of  death  is  necessary,  you  say?  If  such  is  the  case, 
why  have  several  nations  been  able  to  do  without  it?  By  what 
fatality  have  these  nations  been  the  wisest,  the  happiest,  and  the 
freest?  If  the  death  penalty  is  the  proper  way  to  prevent  great 
crimes,  it  must  then  be  that  they  were  rarer  with  these  people 
who  have  adopted  and  extended  it.  Now,  the  contrary  is  exactly 
the  case.  See  Japan;  nowhere  are  the  death  penalty  and  extreme 
punishments  so  frequent;  nowhere  are  crimes  so  frequent  and 
atrocious.  It  is  as  if  the  Japanese  tried  to  dispute  in  ferocity  the 
barbarous  laws  which  outrage  and  irritate  them.  The  republics 
of  Greece,  where  punishments  were  moderate,  where  the  death 
penalty  was  either  very  rare  or  absolutely  unknown — did  they 
produce  more  crimes  or  less  virtues  than  the  countries  governed 
by  the  laws  of  blood?  Do  you  beheve  that  Rome  was  more  dis- 
graced by  heinous  crimes  when,  in  the  days  of  her  glory,  the 
Porcian  law  had  abolished  the  severe  punishments  applied  by  the 
kings  and  by  the  decemvirs,  than  she  was  under  Sylla  who  had 
revived  them,  and  under  the  emperors  who  exerted  their  rigor 
to  a  degree  in  keeping  with  their  infamous  tyranny?  Has  Russia 
suffered  any  upheaval  since  the  despot  who  governs  her  sup- 
pressed entirely  the  death  penalty,  as  if  he  wished  to  expiate  by 
that  act  of  humanity  and  philosophy  the  crime  of  keeping  mil- 
lions of  men  under  the  yoke  of  absolute  power? 

Listen  to  the  voice  of  justice  and  of  reason;  it  cries  to  us  that 
human  judgments  are  never  certain  enough  to  warrant  society  in 
giving  death  to  a  man  convicted  by  other  men  liable  to  error. 
Had  you  imagined  the  most  perfect  judicial  system;  had  you 


300  APPENDIX 

found  the  most  upright  and  enhghtened  judges,  there  will  always 
remain  some  room  for  error  or  prejudice.  Why  interdict  to 
yourselves  the  means  of  reparation?  Why  condemn  yourself  to 
powerlessness  to  help  oppressed  innocence?  What  good  can 
come  of  the  sterile  regrets,  these  illusory  reparations  you  grant 
to  a  vain  shade,  to  insensible  ashes?  They  are  the  sad  testimo- 
nials of  the  barbarous  temerity  of  your  penal  laws.  To  rob  the 
man  of  the  possibility  of  expiating  his  crime  by  his  repentance  or 
by  acts  of  virtue;  to  close  to  him  without  mercy  every  return 
toward  a  proper  life,  and  his  own  esteem;  to  hasten  his  descent, 
as  it  were,  into  the  grave  still  covered  with  the  recent  blotch 
of  his  crime,  is  in  my  eyes  the  most  horrible  refinement  of 
cruelty. 

The  first  duty  of  the  lawmaker  is  to  form  and  to  conserve  pub- 
lic morals,  as  the  source  of  all  liberty,  the  source  of  all  social 
happiness.  When,  to  attain  some  special  aim,  he  loses  sight  of 
this  general  and  essential  object,  he  commits  the  grossest  and 
most  fatal  of  errors.  Therefore  the  laws  must  ever  present  to  the 
people  the  purest  model  of  justice  and  of  reason.  If,  in  lieu  of 
this  puissant  severity,  of  this  moderate  calmness  which  should 
characterize  them,  they  replace  it  by  anger  and  vengeance;  if 
they  cause  human  blood  to  flow  which  they  can  prevent — which 
they  have  no  right  to  spill;  if  they  exhibit  to  the  eyes  of  the 
people  cruel  scenes  and  corpses  bruised  by  tortures — then  they 
change  in  the  hearts  of  the  citizens  all  ideas  of  the  just  and  of  the 
unjust;  they  cause  to  germinate  in  the  bosom  of  society  ferocious 
prejudices  which  in  their  turn  again  produce  others.  Man  is  no 
longer  for  man  an  object  so  sacred  as  before.  One  has  a  lower 
idea  of  his  dignity  when  public  authority  makes  light  of  his  life. 
The  idea  of  the  murder  fills  us  with  less  horror  when  the  law 
itself  sets  the  example  and  provides  the  spectacle;  the  horror  of 
the  crime  diminishes  from  the  time  law  no  longer  punishes  it 
except  by  another  crime.  Have  a  care  not  to  confound  the 
efficacy  of  punishment  with  excess  of  severity;  the  one  is  abso- 
lutely opposed  to  the  other.  Everj^thing  favors  moderate  laws; 
everything  conspires  against  cruel  laws.  It  has  been  remarked 
that  in  free  countries  crimes  are  of  rarer  occurrence  and  the  penal 
laws  Hghter;  all  ideas  are  linked  together.    Free  countries  are 


APPENDIX  301 

those  in  which  the  rights  of  man  are  respected,  and  where,  con- 
sequently, the  laws  are  just.  Where  they  offend  humanity  by  an 
excess  of  rigor,  it  is  a  proof  that  there  the  dignity  of  man  is  not 
known  and  that  the  dignity  of  the  citizen  does  not  exist.  It  is  a 
proof  that  the  legislator  is  but  a  master  who  commands  slaves 
and  punishes  them  mercilessly  according  to  his  whim. 


THE  MOUSETRAP  QUOTATION » 

"If  a  man  can  write  a  better  book,  preach  a  better  sermon,  or 
make  a  better  mousetrap  than  his  neighbor,  though  he  build 
his  house  in  the  woods,  the  world  will  make  a  beaten  path  to 
his  door." 

In  the  February,  1911,  issue  of  The  Docket,  there  appeared  a 
Confession  from  a  member  of  the  advertising  department  of  the 
West  Publishing  Company  which  precipitated  a  discussion  of 
national  extent  as  to  the  authorship  of  the  aphorism  which  heads 
this  article.  Subscribers  all  over  the  country  sent  in  suggestions 
as  to  possible,  probable,  and  putative  authors,  while  Hterati  and 
librarians  everywhere  were  besought  to  really  justify  their  exist- 
ence for  once  by  settling  the  matter  authoritatively  with  a 
verified  citation.  Various  journals,  including  Life,  flung  the 
inquiry  broadcast  over  the  country,  playing  the  deeps  and  shal- 
lows as  an  angler  plays  a  stream. 

The  first  definite  result  established  by  the  inquiry  was  the  fact 
that  this  statement  does  not  appear  in  any  of  Emerson's  pub- 
lished works.  The  minute  examination  to  which  they  have  been 
subjected,  as  well  as  the  statement  of  Dr.  E.  W.  Emerson,  the 
son  and  Uterary  executor  of  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson,  removes  all 
hope  in  that  direction.  Although  Emerson  has  been  credited 
with  the  statement  for  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century,  it  is  im- 
possible to  justify  that  popular  impression  by  any  reference  to 
his  published  works.    So  much  for  that  point. 

The  next  point  to  consider  is  the  oldest  authority  for  giving 
the  credit  to  Emerson.  This  distinction  belongs,  so  far  as 
present  search  has  revealed,  to  a  little  book  entitled  "Borrow- 
ings," compiled  by  Mrs.  Sarah  S.  B.  Yule  and  Mary  S.  Keene, 
and  published  by  the  Dodge  Publishing  Company.  Mrs.  Yule 
is  authority  for  the  statement  that  the  work  was  compiled  in 

*  Reprinted  from  The  Docket,  with  the  permission  of  the  West 
Publishing  Company, 

302 


APPENDIX  303 

1889.  It  was  published  in  1893.  Asked  to  give  her  authority  for 
the  credit,  Mrs.  Yule  writes  as  follows: 

"To  the  best  of  my  memory  and  belief,  I  copied  it  in  my 
handbook  from  an  address  delivered  long  years  ago,  it  being  my 
custom  to  write  everything  there  that  I  thought  particularly 
good,  if  expressed  in  concise  form;  and  when  we  were  compiling 
'Borrowings'  I  drew  from  this  old  handbook  freely.  It  will  seem 
strange  to  you,  as  it  does  to  me,  that  Emerson  never  incorporated 
this  in  any  of  his  essays." 

Mrs.  Yule's  impression  thus  corresponds  with  the  deduction  of 
Dr.  E.  W.  Emerson,  who  wTote,  "I  presume  it  may  have  been 
used  in  a  lecture,  and  reported  in  a  paper,"  and  would  justify  the 
widespread  popular  impression  that  the  Sage  of  Concord  gave 
original  utterance  to  the  dictum.  Apparently,  however,  it  must 
forever  remain  "not  proven." 

Mr.  Elbert  Hubbard's  connection  with  the  mousetrap  quota- 
tion deserves  a  chapter  to  itself.  A  number  of  our  subscribers 
wrote  us,  suggesting  Mr.  Hubbard's  name  as  a  candidate  for  the 
crown  of  authorship,  if  we  were  unable  to  find  the  paragraph  in 
Thoreau,  Herbert  Spencer,  Voltaire,  or  R.  L.  S.  Some  of  the 
Era's  admirers  e\adently  wrote  to  him  also,  and,  after  some 
modest  hesitancy,  he  gradually  admitted  the  soft  impeachment. 

When  the  question  was  fu'st  raised,  and  there  was  still  a  good 
possibility  that  some  one  might,  by  searching  Emerson,  find  out 
the  truth,  Mr.  Hubbard  left  the  answering  of  inquiries  to  his 
assistant  superintendent,  who  admitted  that  he  had  spent  sleep- 
less nights  poring  over  Emerson  in  an  endeavor  to  find  the 
quotation,  and  that  he  had  had  his  suspicions  turned  in  the 
direction  of  the  Era  by  that  gentleman's  "far-away,  quizzical 
smile." 

When  the  inquiry  had  been  pending  for  some  months,  and  the 
possibilities  of  a  verdict  in  favor  of  Emerson  or  any  one  else  began 
to  look  dubious,  the  Roycrofters,  "per  E.  R.  S.,"  wTote  more 
definitely,  though  still  somewhat  cautiously,  to  an  inquirer: 
"As  you  say,  this  has  the  ring  of  Emerson.  It  was  WTitten  by 
Mr.  Hubbard,  but  inspired  by  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson.  Trusting 
this  information  will  be  almost  satisfactory,  we  remain."  [Itahcs 
ours.] 


304  APPENDIX 

The  third  stage  and  the  last  of  this  Roy-crafty  pretense  appears 
in  an  advertisement  published  in  The  Fra,  in  May,  1911,  and 
which  reads  as  follows: 

"Mr.  Hubbard,  like  all  writers  of  epigrams,  has  attributed 
some  of  his  good  Class  A  product  to  other  writers.  For  instance, 
he  was  once  writing  about  the  Roycrofters,  and,  having  in  mind 
the  number  of  visitors  who  come  to  see  us,  he  wrote  this:  'If  a 
man  can  A\Tite  a  better  book,  preach  a  better  sermon,  or  make  a 
better  mousetrap  than  his  neighbor,  though  he  build  his  house 
in  the  woods,  the  world  will  make  a  beaten  path  to  his  door.' 

"It  was  a  little  strain  on  his  ego  to  let  this  thing  go  under  his 
own  stamp,  so  he  saved  his  modesty,  and  at  the  same  time  gave 
the  epigram  specific  gravity,  by  attributing  it  to  one  Ralph 
Waldo  Emerson. 

"The  world  took  it  up,  and  Emerson's  writings  have  been 
scoured  with  finetooth  combs  in  the  endeavor  to  locate  this 
particular  epigram,  when  it  is  simply  one  of  the  things  that 
Emerson  would  have  said,  if  it  had  occurred  to  him. 

"Mr.  Hubbard  may  have  found  a  few  mental  mavericks  in 
Emerson,  which  in  moments  of  aberration  he  has  branded  as  his 
own;  but,  if  so,  the  debt  is  more  than  offset  by  things  which  he 
has  attributed  to  Emerson  that  Emerson  never  WTote." 

It  is  almost  a  pity  to  spoil  the  perfection  of  this  Progress  of  the 
Pretender  by  any  comment,  but  it  may  be  well  to  point  out  that 
Mr.  Hubbard  claims  to  have  been  inspired  to  make  the  mouse- 
trap comparison  by  noting  the  number  of  \'isitors  who  came  to 
see  the  Roycrofters,  who  conduct  a  shop  at  East  Aurora,  and 
publish  the  Philistine  and  other  of  the  Era's  Uterary  composi- 
tions. Now,  it  appears  to  be  historically  established  that 
Mr.  Hubbard's  first  "Little  Journey"  was  published  in  Decem- 
ber, 1894,  and  the  Philistine  was  begun  in  1895.  The  Roycroft 
shop  as  a  Mecca  for  pilgrims  did  not  come  into  existence  until 
after  the  location  had  been  advertised  to  the  world  by  the  editor 
and  owner  of  the  Philistine. 

When  we  recall  that  "  Borro-wings  "  was  pubHshed  in  1893,  and 
was  compiled  by  Mrs.  Yule  in  1889,  from  scrapbook  notations 
which  had  been  in  progress  of  collection  during  many  years,  we 
must  either  conclude  that  this  quotation  is  one  of  the  mental 


APPENDIX  305 

mavericks  of  Emerson,  which  Mr.  Hubbard,  in  a  moment  of 
aberration,  has  branded  as  his  own,  or  that  Mr.  Emerson  was 
guilty  of  that  old  ecclesiastical  aberration,  "plagiarism  by  an- 
ticipation," from  the  productions  of  Mr.  Hubbard  which  had 
not  yet  taken  form  in  language.  In  any  event,  the  verdict  as  to 
Mr.  Emerson  may  be  expressed  in  the  Scotch  formula,  "Not 
Proven." 

Mr.  Hubbard  being  disposed  of,  and  the  claim  as  to  Emerson 
seeming  to  be  beyond  proof,  another  claimant  appeared  in  the 
field,  and  for  the  last  two  years  the  caption,  "That  Emerson 
Quotation  Located  at  Last,"  has  appeared  in  a  number  of  papers 
in  all  parts  of  the  country.  The  mystery  was  pronounced 
"solved"  by  attributing  the  quotation  to  Dr.  John  R.  Paxton, 
who  was  a  pastor  of  the  West  Presbyterian  Church,  New  York 
City,  from  1882  to  1893. 

The  credit  for  this  discovery  has  been  given  to  Mr.  Calvin  Dill 
Wilson,  of  Glendale,  0.;  and  the  editor  of  The  Docket,  in  pursuit 
of  exact  information,  corresponded  with  Mr.  Wilson  in  the  hope 
of  securing  a  conclusive  demonstration  of  Dr.  Paxton's  author- 
ship. Mr.  Wilson  was  unable  to  refer  to  any  copy  of  the  sermon, 
but  he  was  confident  that  it  had  been  published  in  the  Treasury 
Magazine,  in  1889,  a  publication  now  out  of  print,  and  that  it 
occurred  in  a  sermon  entitled  "The  Unhidden  Christ."  The 
Docket  then  appealed  to  the  Librarian  of  Congress  to  make  exam- 
ination of  the  files  of  the  Treasury  for  1889;  and  the  Chief 
Bibliographer  of  the  Library  reported  that  an  examination  of  the 
magazine  failed  to  disclose  the  quotation  in  question,  the  nearest 
approach  to  that  sentiment  in  Dr.  Paxton's  sermon  being  the 
following: 

"You  may  begin  business  in  any  obscure  place,  but  if  there  is 
ability,  power,  and  a  mastery  of  affairs  in  you,  then  all  the  steam- 
boats in  the  river  will  whistle  for  you,  and  the  railroads  say, 
'Come  over  and  manage  us.'  You  cannot  be  hid.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  j'ou  have  nothing  the  world  wants,  if  you  have  no  power 
to  paint  a  picture,  or  manage  business,  you  are  hidden  already. 
You  may  live  in  your  front  windows,  and  drive  on  Fifth  avenue; 
but  you  are  hid." 

The  confident  assertion  of  the  newspapers  that  the  quotation 


306  APPENDIX 

has  been  located  can  hardly  be  said  to  stand  the  tests  which 
lawyers  are  trained  to  apply  to  testimony. 

But  now  appear  the  Journals  of  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson,  never 
heretofore  published.  Mr.  Hugh  K.  Wagner  of  St.  Louis,  Mo., 
sends  us  a  clipping  from  a  St.  Louis  paper,  the  astute  editor  of 
which  has  been  reading  the  Journals  to  good  purpose,  for  on 
page  528  of  volume  8,  covering  Emerson's  Journal,  written  in 
1855,  appears  the  following  memorandum  jotted  down  by  the 
Sage  of  Concord: 

"If  a  man  has  good  corn,  or  wood,  or  boards,  or  pigs,  to  sell,  or 
can  make  better  chairs  or  knives,  crucibles  or  church  organs, 
than  anybody  else,  you  will  find  a  broad,  hard-beaten  road  to  his 
house,  though  it  be  in  the  woods.  And  if  a  man  knows  the  law, 
people  will  find  it  out,  though  he  Uve  in  a  pine  shanty,  and  resort 
to  him." 

Emerson's  so-called  Journals  were  really  notebooks,  or  com- 
monplace books,  in  which  he  jotted  down,  not  events,  but  the 
rough  material  of  his  lectures  and  essays.  Thoughts  that  are 
familiar  to  the  world  through  his  published  works  will  be  found 
scattered  through  these  Journals  in  the  rough  and  fragmentary 
form  in  which  they  first  came  to  him,  and  he  frequently  recast 
his  idea  in  both  verse  and  essay  form.  These  parallelisms  are 
well  known  to  students  of  Emerson,  and  are  one  of  the  most 
interesting  indications  of  the  groTvlih  of  a  thought  in  his  mind. 

The  note  in  his  1855  Journal  does  not  use  the  word  "mouse- 
trap," but  it  so  closely  parallels  the  quotation  which  Mrs.  Yule 
credits  to  him  in  her  book  of  "Borrowings,"  and  which,  "to  the 
best  of  her  memory  and  belief,"  she  says  she  copied  into  her 
handbook  from  an  address  deUvered  by  Emerson,  that  it  would 
seem  to  estabUsh  Emerson's  authorship  beyond  reasonable  doubt. 
To  paraphrase  the  famous  quotation: 

"If  a  man  can  phrase  a  telling  thought,  though  he  write  it  in 
his  private  journal,  or  speak  it  in  a  lyceum  lecture,  the  world  will 
catch  it  up  and  blazon  liis  name  on  post  cards." 


'EXERCISES 

Chapter  I 
ARGUMENT 

I.  Let  the  class  consider  the  editorial  page  of  one  of  the  current 
newspapers  with  a  view  to  distinguishing  the  passages  that  are 
contentious  from  those  that  are  argumentative. 

II.  Assign  the  speeches  of  Brutus  and  Antony  in  Julius 
Coesar  for  consideration,  asking  the  class  to  consider  to  what 
extent  either  of  them  is  contentious. 

III.  Ask  each  member  of  the  class  to  bring  in  a  sample  of  the 
different  kinds  of  composition,  description,  narration,  and  ex- 
position, and  then  show  how  each  would  have  to  be  changed  to 
become  argumentative. 

IV.  In  the  specimen  forensic  (page  267),  assign  certain  pas- 
sages for  consideration,  asking  the  students  to  comment  upon 
them  with  regard  to  whether  they  are  cliiefly  convincing  or  per- 
suasive. 

Chapter  II 

THE  SUBJECT 

I.  Criticise  the  following  questions  used  in  the  Harvard- Yale, 
and  Harvard-Princeton  Debates:  ^  numbers  3,  8,  15,  16,  21,  31, 
32,  33,  38,  41. 

II.  Construct  two  questions  under  each  of  the  following 
general  heads. 

1.  Military  training. 

2.  College  entrance  examinations. 

3.  Commission  government. 

^  See  pages  249-253,  Appendix. 
307 


308  EXERCISES 

4.  Direct  legislation. 

5.  Student  self-government. 

6.  Intercollegiate  athletics. 

7.  Arctic  explorations. 

8.  Qualifications  for  franchise. 

9.  Intoxicating  liquors. 

10.  Labor  and  capital. 

1 1 .  Courses  of  study. 

12.  Arbitration. 

13.  Immigration. 

14.  War. 

III.  Frame  two  questions  from  which  you  are  to  select  one  to 
write  an  argument.  Indicate  how  these  questions  fulfill  the  four 
requirements  of  this  chapter. 

IV.  What  fault  do  you  fiind  in  the  following  subjects  for 
debate? 

1.  All  men  should  vote. 

2.  The  steam  engine  has  done  more  for  civilization  than  the 
printing  press. 

3.  Under  certain  conditions  a  man  is  justified  in  committing 
murder. 

4.  Christianity  should  be  the  universal  religion. 

5.  The  United  States  should  maintain  a  neutral  position  in  the 
event  of  foreign  wars  as  long  as  its  national  honor  is  not  in- 
volved. 

6.  The  rates  charged  by  railroads  in  the  United  States  should 
be  subject  to  control  by  a  body  of  men  selected  by  the  govern- 
ment which  should  have  the  power  to  consider  cases  of  injustice 
and  enter  decrees  which  the  railroads  should  be  compelled  to 
obey  through  the  intervention,  if  necessary,  of  the  federal  gov- 
ernment. 

7.  If  war  had  ensued  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States  as  a  result  of  the  Venezuelan  dispute  in  President  Cleve- 
land's administration,  the  United  States  would  have  been  com- 
pelled to  sue  for  peace  within  two  years. 

8.  The  English  form  of  government  is  more  democratic  than 
that  of  the  United  States. 

9.  Country  life  is  preferable  to  city  Ufe. 


EXERCISES  309 

10.  The  salary  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  should 
not  be  increased. 

11.  The  principle  of  compulsory  athletics  in  those  preparatory 
schools  in  which  the  students  do  not  return  to  their  homes  at  the 
close  of  each  day. 

12.  Wood  is  more  valuable  to  mankind  than  iron, 

13.  The  use  of  drugs  and  narcotics  should  constitute  a  criminal 
offence. 

14.  A  pleasant  day  in  October  is  preferable  to  a  pleasant  day 
in  May. 

15.  Divorces  should  be  granted  in  the  United  States  as  a 
matter  of  right  upon  the  appHcation  of  either  of  the  contracting 
parties. 

Chapter  III 
EXPLANATION 

1.  Present  in  outline  form  the  details  of  the  necessary  steps  of 
the  explanation  of  some  question,  preferably  one  on  which  you 
are  to  write  an  argument.  If  you  decide  to  omit  any  steps,  give 
reasons  for  doing  so. 

2.  Select  three  of  the  Harvard -Yale-Princeton  debate  questions 
(pp.  249-253),  in  which  it  is  desirable  to  omit  one  or  more  of 
the  steps  of  the  explanation.     Give  reasons  for  your  answer. 

3.  In  the  specimen  forensic  how  would  you  answer  the  query 
on  page  269.    Give  reasons  for  your  answer. 

Chapter  IV 

ANALYSIS 

1.  Let  the  teacher  form  a  conflict  of  opinions  on  a  subject 
within  the  knowledge  of  the  class,  such  as  the  "honor  system"  or 
the  "large  against  the  small  college."  All  the  arguments  sug- 
gested by  the  class  should  be  %vritten  in  parallel  columns  on  the 
black-board.  This  conflict  should  then  be  reduced  as  the  class 
shall  decide  by  crossing  out  all  matter  to  be  excluded  and  by 
combining  all  related  points.    The  uniformity  of  the  main  issues 


310  EXERCISES 

resulting  from  year  to  year  should  be  called  to  the  attention  of 
the  class. 

2.  Let  each  student  in  similar  fashion  find  the  main  issues  of 
a  question  on  which  he  is  to  write  an  argument. 

3.  What  are  the  issues  in  "The  Mousetrap  Quotation,"  in  the 
appendix?  Would  the  article  be  clearer  if  the  issues  were  categor- 
ically enumerated?  What  possible  justification  is  there  for  not 
enumerating  the  issues? 

Chapter  V 

BRIEFING 

1.  Tell  what  rule  or  rules  are  violated  in  the  following  examples 
of  bad  briefing.    Give  the  correct  form. 

(a) 

A.  The  average  voter  will  not  read  or  understand  the  numerous 

questions  submitted  under  a  referendum,  for 
1.  He  finds  it  difficult,  for 
a.  Nobody  likes  hard  work. 

(b) 

D.  Government  ownership  is  practicable,  for 

1.  The  argument  of  the  negative  is  unsound,  for 

a.  The  borrowing  power  of  the  United  States  is  un- 
limited, for 
(1)  It  would  not  be  necessary  to  borrow  anyway,  for 
(a)  Bonds  of  the  government  would  be  given  for 
the  stocks  taken  over. 

(c) 

B.  The  large  college  has  more  money,  therefore 

1,  This  enables  it  to  purchase  better  equipments,  and 

a.  This  improves  the  health  of  the  students. 

b.  It  can  give  unusual  educational  opportunities  to  its 

students. 


I 


EXERCISES  311 

(d) 

1.  The  Mexicans  plotted  against  the  Americans  and  fired 
across  the  Texas  border,  for 
They  hated  the  Americans, 
b.  (1)  Which  explains  the  attack. 

(e) 

Conclusion 

I.  Therefore,  in  consideration  of  all  the  aforesaid  reasons,  the 
Phihppines  should  be  given  immediate  self-government. 

(/) 
III.  The  conflicting  opinions  are  as  follows: — 
A.  The  affirmative  makes  these  contentions: 

1.  The  United  States  should  intervene  in  Mexico,  for 
a.  Peace  would  be  restored  there. 

1.  a.  Which  would  benefit  the  world, 
b.  Which  is  sorely  needed. 

(g) 

Introduction 

I.  The  need  of  reform. 
II.  Previous  efforts  to  reform  city  government. 

III.  How  the  mayoralty  system  has  failed. 

IV.  How  both  political  parties  have  failed. 

V.  The  only  remedy — commission  government. 

I.  The  Filipinos  need  self-government  and  they  have  shown 
their  desire  for  it,  for 

A.  Mass  meetings  have  been  held  and  constant  uprisings 

have  occurred  demanding  self-government. 

B.  While  their  daily  papers  make  self-government  their 

watchword. 


312  EXERCISES 

(i) 

III.  The  affirmative  makes  these  contentions. 

A.  England  was  justified  in  declaring  war  on  Germany 
for  these  reasons. 
1.  a.  England  owed  a  duty  to  Belgium  and  to  the 
world  due  to  Belgium's  treaty  with  England, 
and 
b.  Due  to  Belgium's  helpless  position. 

(J) 
a.  The  affirmative  is  mistaken  in  this  matter,  for 
1.  The  large  cities  all  voted  against  suffrage,  for 

(a)  The  population  of  the  city  is  more  intelligent  than 
that  of  the  country,  for 
(1)  Such  cities  as  Boston  and  New  York  were  over 
two  to  one  against  the  amendment, 

2.  Construct  a  brief  of  the  proof  of  Robespierre's  speech  in  the 
appendix. 

3.  Construct  a  brief  of  "The  Mousetrap  Quotation"  in  the 
appendix. 

4.  Let  the  teacher  assign  for  consideration  any  other  matter 
which  is  suitable  for  briefing  and  then  require  the  class  to  con- 
struct a  brief  upon  it.  (For  examples  of  such  matter  see  Appen- 
dix, Baker  and  Huntington's  Principles  of  Argwmntation.) 

Chapter  VI 

EVIDENCE 

1.  Criticize  the  following  as  authorities  on  the  large  and  small 
college  question: 

a.  President  Hyde  of  Bowdoin,  a  graduate  of  Harvard. 

b.  President  Hibben  of  Princeton. 

c.  Jesse  Willard,  champion  heavyweight  boxer. 

d.  Honus  Wagner,  professional  baseball  player. 

e.  Jim  Smith,  a  Yale  undergraduate  and  football  player. 


EXERCISES  313 

f.  John  Williams,  a  graduate  of  Beloit  College  but  now  a 

student  in  the  Harvard  Law  School. 

g.  James  Bryce,  former  ambassador  to  the  United  States, 

and  author  of  "The  American  Commonwealth,"  the 
standard  treatise  on  American  institutions. 

h.  Leonard  Ayres,  director  of  the  division  of  education  of 
the  Russell  Sage  Foundation. 

i.  Alfred  Noyes,  English  poet,  now  lecturing  at  Princeton. 

j.  Theodore  Roosevelt,  a  graduate  of  Harvard. 

2.  Bring  to  class  five  good  authorities  on  each  of  five  subjects 
selected  from  the  appendix. 

3.  In  what  ways  is  the  "Encyclopaedia  Britannica"  a  good 
authority? 

4.  Are  the  follo-^v-ing  sources  of  evidence  good? 

a.  A  conductor  testifying  in  favor  of  the  railroad  company 

for  which  he  works. 

b.  A  conductor  testifying  against  the  railroad  company  for 

which  he  works. 

c.  A  conductor  testifying  against  the  railroad  company  by 

which  he  has  been  discharged. 

d.  An  inmate  of  an  insane  asylum  testifying  against  the 

superintendent. 

e.  The  remarks  made  by  a  man  when  asleep. 

f.  A  doctor  testifying  that  he  had  sold  to  the  defendant  for 

$10.00  a  prescription  for  a  dangerous  drug. 

g.  A  foreigner  testifying  on  the  day  of  his  arrival  in  the 

United  States  that  the  American  girl  as  a  class  is  rude 
and  hoyden. 

h.  A  child  six  years  old. 

i.  A  celebrated  surgeon  testifying  with  regard  to  the  neces- 
sity of  an  operation  upon  a  man  whom  he  has  never 
seen  but  whose  symptoms  have  been  described  to 
him. 
5.  Criticize  the  following  pieces  of  evidence: 

a.  The  claim  of  a  man  that  while  crossing  the  street  he 
jumped  forward  to  escape  a  street  car  coming  toward 
him  on  his  right,  and  was  knocked  down  by  another 
coming  from  the  left  on  the  other  track. 


314  EXERCISES 

b.  The  claim  that  high  license  has  succeeded  because  Ban- 

gor, Maine,  has  decided  to  raise  its  license  fee  from 
$500  to  $1000. 

c.  "We  see  the  sense  of  the  Crown,  and  the  sense  of  Parlia- 

ment on  the  productive  nature  of  a  revenue  by  grant. 
Now  search  the  same  journals  for  the  produce  of 
revenue  by  imposition.  Where  is  it?  Let  us  know  the 
volume  and  the  page.  What  is  the  gross;  what  is  the 
net  produce?  To  what  service  is  it  applied?  How 
have  you  appropriated  the  surplus?  What!  Can 
none  of  the  many  skillful  index-readers  that  we  are  now 
employing  find  any  trace  of  it?"    (Burke.) 

d.  "The   hammer   throw   should   be   abolished   in   inter- 

collegiate contests  because  it  requires  more  than  three 
years  to  become  really  proficient  at  it.  It  is  also  not 
advisable  for  college  men  to  give  prominence  to  an 
athletic  event  which  can  only  be  practiced  by  athletes 
whose  only  qualifications  seem  to  be  big  bodies  and 
brute  strength." 
6.  Mention  and  classify  the  pieces  of  evidence  to  be  found  in 
the  "Mousetrap  Quotation."    (Appendix.) 

Chapter  VII 
REASONING 

Classify  the  following  examples  of  reasoning: — 

(1)  Within  twenty  minutes  the  whole  police  force  of  Boston  is 

searching  for  the  murderer.  An  accurate  description  is 
sent  out  and  soon  all  over  New  England  the  police  are 
watching  for  him.  Notwithstanding  this  he  is  so  bright 
and  capable  and  his  plans  are  so  well  laid  that  he  is 
enabled  to  elude  the  vigilance  of  all  the  best  officers  and 
detectives  and  make  his  escape  to  Canada.  These  facts 
laugh  at  this  defence  of  insanity. 

(2)  This  was  the  act  of  an  intoxicated  man,  for  which  of  the 

members  of  this  reputable  society  would  so  lower  him- 
self to  insult  a  respectable  old  woman  if  he  were  in  his 


EXERCISES  315 

right  senses?  Moreover,  of  all  the  men  present,  the 
evidence  is  indisputable  that  the  defendant  alone  had  an 
excessive  wine  bill. 

(3)  The  continued  success  of  this  old,  conservative,  low-priced 

house  is  evidence  enough  of  the  character,  individuahty, 
and  durability  of  its  material  and  workmanship,  as  well 
as  of  the  truth  of  its  advertisements  and  the  courtesy  of 
its  management. 

(4)  Business  to-day  must  be  on  a  large  scale  to  be  successful. 

Science  plays  an  important  part,  and  that  is  why  big 
consolidations  are  better  for  any  business  as  a  whole. 
The  small  concerns  cannot  afford  to  hire  men  of  the 
highest  ability,  because  the  overhead  expense  is  too 
great. 

(5)  Do  you  remember  "The  Beloved  Vagabond,"  and  "Sep- 

timus," and  the  other  whimsical  Locke  characters? 
Then  you  surely  want  to  meet  Fortinibras,  the  central 
figure  of  William  J.  Locke's  new  novel. 

(6)  All  nations  that  have  pursued  a  military  poHcy  have  de- 

cayed. 
Gone  are  "the  glory  that  was  Greece, 
And  the  grandeur  that  was  Rome." 
Is  there  any  doubt  that  Germany,  too,  will  follow  in  the 

footsteps  of  her  illustrious  predecessors? 

(7)  The  United  States  must  adopt  a  policy  of  preparedness  for 

war.  We  must  be  so  armed  that  no  nation  will  dare  to 
cope  with  us. 

(8)  The  United  States  should  adopt  a  policy  of  complete  dis- 

armament. Peace  cannot  be  kept  with  a  chip  on  the 
shoulder  and  boxing  gloves  on  the  hands.  If  we  are  not 
armed,  we  shall  not  look  for  trouble,  but  we  shall  be 
peaceable  with  all  nations,  and  it  takes  two  to  make  a 
quarrel. 

(9)  The  proposal  to  take  the  street  cars  off  Washington 

Street  in  order  to  aid  business  by  reheving  congestion 
borders  on  the  absurd.  Congestion  does  not  make 
business  bad,  but  good.  As  the  gentleman  from  Port- 
land said:  "I  see  in  your  papers  the  complaint  of  con- 


316  EXERCISES 

gested  streets.  We  should  like  to  see  some  of  that 
congestion  here." 
(10)  The  gentleman  asks  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  should  give  heed  to  the  dictum  expressed  in  a 
decision  by  one  of  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
New  York.  It  is  surely  a  novel  theory  of  jurisprudence 
that  a  higher  court  shall  consider  itself  bound  by  the 
erroneous  inferences  drawn  by  a  court  of  inferior  juris- 
diction. Because  my  lady's  lap-dog  chooses  to  chase 
his  tail  'round  and  'round  upon  the  carpet  of  her  cham- 
ber, is  it  any  reason  that  the  lordly  elephant  should 
gyrate  after  his  caudal  appendage?  Because  the  Jersey 
mosquito  sings  his  song  in  a  dulcet  soprano,  is  it  any 
reason  that  the  lion  should  roar  in  high  "C"? 


Chapter  VIII 
FALLACIES 

1.  Explain  how  hasty  generalization,  false  analogy,  and  mistaken 
causal  relation  are  fundamentally  special  cases  of  begging  the 
question. 

2.  Classify  the  following  fallacies: — 

(1)  The  life  of  all  great  athletes  is  short.    Yale's  greatest 

football  captains  of  a  decade  were  Gordon  Brown, 
Jim  Hogan,  and  Tom  Shevlin,  and  all  died  in  early 
manhood. 

(2)  A  Boston  paper  printed  an  editorial  on  "Our  Gram- 

matical Decay."  It  regrets  the  general  failure  to 
observe  distinctions  like  those  in  "should"  and 
"would,"  "who"  and  "that,"  and  so  on.  Yet  on  the 
same  editorial  page  are  to  be  found  at  least  three 
cases  of  "will"  used  for  "shall." 

(3)  You  should  use  White's  hen  food.    It  will  make  your 

hens  lay,  for  it  is  made  of  cod-fish,  and  the  cod-fish 
lays  more  than  10,000  eggs  a  day. 

(4)  Athletic  victories  increase  the  attendance  of  a  school, 

for  in  1910-1915,  A.  Academy  defeated  M.  School  in 


EXERCISES  317 

football,  and  the  attendance  at  A.  increased  from 
180  to  210. 

(5)  "President  Eliot  spoke  last  Sunday  to  us  workingmen 

about  'The  Joy  of  Work!'"  said  the  speaker  and 
paused.  Then  as  he  lifted  his  head  from  his  man- 
uscript and  looked  out  over  the  crowded  hall,  a 
sound  of  derisive  laughter  spread  in  wave  after  wave 
over  the  audience.  There  was  but  one  thing  to  think 
of  such  an  idea  as  "The  Joy  of  Work."  It  was  a 
bitter  joke.  To  the  workmen  present,  it  was  really 
ludicrous  that  a  man  could  be  so  foolish,  so  ignorant 
of  manual  work,  as  to  believe  that  there  is  any  enjoy- 
ment in  it.    (Cabot,  What  Men  Live  By,  p.  21.) 

(6)  One  need  not  be  discouraged  if  a  job  starts  out  slowly 

and  unsatisfactorily,  for  well-begun  is  only  half- 
done. 

(7)  Have  you  abandoned  your  intemperate  habits  yet? 

(8)  The  practice  of  spending  generously  and  not  of  saving 

should  be  encouraged,  for  it  enormously  increases 
trade  and  makes  the  whole  country  more  prosperous. 

(9)  He  is  the  richest  man  in  the  world,  because  he  is  the 

richest  man  in  the  United  States,  and  the  United 
States  is  the  richest  country  in  the  world. 

(10)  Man,  says  Mr.  Huxley,  is  descended  from  the  ape.    The 

ape  is  a  wild  beast.  It  therefore  follows,  according  to 
Mr.  Huxley,  that  man  is  a  wild  beast. 

(11)  I  went  to  many  doctors  and  was  treated  for  hook-worm 

with  little  success.  They  told  me  that  six  months  of 
rest  and  good  food  was  all  that  would  cure  me.  After 
taking  only  ten  bottles  of  your  medicine  in  four 
months  I  feel  as  good  as  new.  I  am  glad  to  recom- 
mend   Remedy  for  anyone  in  a 

run-down  condition. 

(12)  The  scriptural  account  of  Jonah  and  the  Whale  is  true 

for  it  is  trusted  by  the  long  generations  of  divines  who 
believe  in  the  Bible. 

(13)  The  good  effects  of  the  Czar's  decree  establishing  na- 

tional prohibition  in  Russia  are  everywhere  apparent. 


318  EXERCISES 

This  is  sufficient  guaranty  that  national  prohibition 
would  work  well  in  the  United  States. 

(14)  Professor  Channing's  suggestion  that  perhaps  Wash- 

ington did  not  take  command  of  the  American  Army 
under  the  Washington  elm  is  erroneous,  for  the  elm  is 
there  with  the  tablet  to  prove  it. 

(15)  The  modern  writers  who  criticize  Cooper  because  he 

falsely  idealized  the  character  of  the  American 
Indians  would  do  well  to  consider  the  last  of  the 
Mohicans.  No  better  example  of  true  manly  virtue 
can  be  found. 

(16)  Mr. attempts  to  bolster  up  his  plea  for  non- 

sectarianism  in  schools  by  asking,  "What  is  truth?" 
This  is  the  same  question  that  came  from  the  evil 
mouth  of  Pontius  Pilate  centuries  ago.  It  is  but 
natural  that  men  of  the  same  irrehgious  beliefs  should 
express  themselves  in  the  same  way.  It  would  be 
sacrilegious  for  us  even  to  consider  the  views  of  the 
honorable  gentleman. 

(17)  I  must  confess,  gentlemen,  that  I  cannot  see  any  need  of 

increasing  the  navy  of  the  United  States.  It  has 
always  been  sufficient  for  our  needs.  The  valor  and 
virtue  of  American  men  has  kept  the  sacred  folds  of 
Old  Glory  waving  at  the  head  of  the  procession  of 
civiUzation  since  it  was  first  flung  to  the  winds  of 
heaven  over  a  century  ago.  That  same  valor  and 
that  same  virtue  may  well  remain  our  protection  in 
the  days  that  are  to  come. 

(18)  "I  have  struck  a  city— a  real  city,  and  they  call  it 

Chicago.    Having  seen  it,  I  urgently  desire  never  to 

see  it  again.    It  is  inhabited  by  savages.    The 

girls  of  America  are  above  all  others.  They  are 
clever,  they  can  talk — yea,  it  is  said  that  they  think. 
Certainly  they  give  an  appearance  of  so  doing  which 
is  dehghtfuUy  deceptive."    (Kipling.) 

(19)  The  enemies  of  athletics  erroneously  but  strenuously 

insist  that  athletics  interfere  unduly  with  studies. 
Yet  four  men  on  last  year's  football  team  graduated 


EXERCISES  319 

with  honors  and  six  were  elected  to  class  offices. 
Moreover  men  in  the  business  world  seem  more  in- 
clined to  employ  young  men  with  sound  bodies  rather 
than  those  that  have  an  extensive  knowledge  of 
Greek  and  Latin.  After  all,  good  physical  develop- 
ment and  a  clear  head  may  be  of  more  value  to  a 
student  than  mere  scholastic  attainment. 
(20)  The  people  of  the  city  are  much  more  literate  than  the 
people  of  the  country.  The  reason  is  that  there  are  a 
great  number  of  schools  for  each  1,000  of  children  in 
the  population.  The  city  people  have  had  their  eyes 
opened  by  a  good  education;  they  therefore  have 
inteUigence  enough  to  see  the  need  of  schools. 

Chapter  X 

CLEARNESS 

1.  Criticize  the  unity,  coherence,  and  mass  of  the  following 
paragraphs  and  of  the  sentences  composing  them.  Rewrite  the 
paragraphs  if  they  are  faulty. 

(1)  The  United  States  soldier  brought  the  Mexican  and  the 

burro  before  the  general  who  decided  that  as  he  had 
lived  there  three  years  longer  than  he  had,  he  should 
believe  his  word  rather  than  the  other's.  But  the 
Mexican  contended  that  the  donkey  had  been  given 
him  by  his  grandfather.  Which  was  a  flagrant 
violation  of  the  truth  because  he  had  died  three 
years  before.  Anyway  the  Mexican's  hatred  of  the 
greaser  was  very  plainly  shown  and  proves  that 
intervention  will  surely  be  followed  by  war  and  will 
moreover  cost  a  lot  of  money. 

(2)  The  submarine  is  a  weak  defenceless  thing  and  it  would 

be  unmerciful  to  allow  it  to  be  fired  on  by  an  armed 
merchantman  because  it  would  sink  it  with  a  six 
inch  shell.  The  Germans  have  perfected  this  new 
instrument  of  warfare  and  why  should  we  prevent 
their  taking  advantage  of  its  effectiveness?    Simply 


320  EXERCISES 

because  of  envy  and  jealousy.  This  nation  is  afraid, 
when  the  war  is  over,  that  Germany  will  attack  us. 

(3)  The  requirements  of  unity  in  the  sentence  are  essen- 

tially similar  to  the  requirements  of  unity  in  the 
paragraph.  The  sentence  must  contain  one  com- 
plete, but  only  one,  thought;  the  paragraph  must 
contain  a  single  central  idea.  A  sentence  without 
unity  is  like  a  teacup  full  of  sugar  and  nails;  a  para- 
graph without  unity  is  like  a  china  closet  full  of  cups 
and  saucers,  and  saws  and  hammers.  The  difference 
is  not  at  all  one  of  kind,  but  merely  one  of  degree. 

(4)  The  tariff  should  be  lowered,  for  the  tax  will  fall  heaviest 

on  the  poor,  for  sugar  has  risen  20%  in  a  year  so  that 
a  breakfast  costs  more  by  two  cents  and  therefore  a 
man  must  skimp  his  lunches  and  candy  has  become  a 
luxury.  The  rich  man  laughs  at  the  slight  increase 
in  the  cost  of  living,  but  these  cause  the  poor  to  wail 
and  gnash  his  teeth.  It  causes  anarchism  and  un- 
employment and  it  results  in  a  much  greater  loss  to 
the  government  in  police  salaries  and  in  the  support 
of  asylums  for  the  poor. 
2.  "While  leading  this  vagrant  and  miserable  life,  Johnson  fell 
in  love." 

This  is  an  initial  sentence  of  a  paragraph  in  Macaulay's  "Life 
of  Johnson."  The  paragraph  containing  the  sentence  tells  of 
Johnson's  love  affair;  the  preceding  paragraph  tells  of  the  va- 
grant and  miserable  life  he  has  been  leading.  Such  a  topic 
sentence  not  only  suggests  the  substance  of  the  paragraph  of 
which  it  is  a  part,  but  it  also  hints  at  the  substance  of  the  pre- 
ceding paragraph.  The  sentence  is  therefore  called  a  transitional 
topic  sentence.  It  is  doubly  good  because  it  tends  to  secure  not 
only  unity  in  the  paragraph  of  which  it  is  a  part,  but  also  co- 
herence with  the  preceding  paragraph. 

Write  two  paragraphs  on  each  of  the  following  transitional 
topic  sentences.  Make  the  second  paragraph  begin  with  the 
given  sentence. 

(1)  While  unity  is  essentially  the  same  in  the  paragraph  and 
in  the  sentence,  it  is  attained  by  different  methods. 


EXERCISES  321 

(2)  While  in  a  large  college  the  boy  goes  through  more 

college,  in  a  small  one  more  college  goes  through  the 
boy. 

(3)  In  some  cases  the  honor  system  may  break  the  boy,  but 

in  most  cases  it  will  make  him. 

(4)  After  a  long  course  of  unchecked  crime  in  his  own  coun- 

try. Villa  finally  crossed  the  border  and  attacked  an 
American  town. 

(5)  Not  only  the  Filipinos  of  the  higher  class,  but  also  those 

of  the  lower  class  have  shown  an  active  desire  for 
independence. 

(6)  The  elective  system,  besides  allowing  each  individual  to 

pursue  the  kind  of  work  he  desires  to  do,  also  raises 
the  standard  of  the  work  done. 

Chapter  XI 
FORCE 

I.  Let  the  class  recast  the  paragraph  giving  the  main  issues  in 
the  specimen  forensic  (p.  272),  securing  a  more  forcible  presenta- 
tion of  them  by  repetition  of  ideas. 

II.  Let  the  class  write  a  paragraph  giving  a  more  forcible 
presentation  of  one  or  more  of  the  following  sentences  by  means 
of  repetition.  (Refer  to  the  original  to  see  how  the  author 
himself  accomplished  the  same  result.) 

1.  "I  am  a  Jew.    Hath  not  a  Jew  eyes?    Hath  not  a  Jew 

hands,"  etc. 

Shakespeare — Merchant  of  Venice. 

2.  "  Discourage  litigation . ' ' 

Notes   from    a   law    lecture,    from    "Little    Masterpieces 
Series."     Lincoln,  p.  8,  Doubleday,  Page  and  Co. 

3.  "He  finds  his  house  in  ruins,  his  farm  devastated,  his 

slaves  free." 
Description  of  the  returning  Confederate  soldier, 
from 

The  New  South  by  Henry  Grady. 


322  EXERCISES 

4.  "It  is  not  so  bad,  then,  to  be  misunderstood." 

Self  Reliance  by  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson. 

5.  "When  men's  lives  .  .  .  hang  on  the  decision  of  the 

hour.  Then  words  have  lost  their  power,  rhetoric  is 
in  vain  and  all  elaborate  oratory  contemptible.  .  .  . 
Then  patriotism  is  eloquent,  etc. 

True  Eloquence  by  Daniel  Webster. 

III.  Have  the  class  rewrite  some  work  which  they  have  al- 
ready done,  in  half  the  number  of  words  originally  used. 

IV.  Have  the  class  write  a  short  speech  using  no  word  of  more 
than  three  syllables  and  no  colloquial  or  foreign  words. 

V.  The  following  examples  contrast  abstract  and  concrete 
paragraphs,  sometimes  by  the  same  author.  Have  the  class 
write  another  concrete  statement  paraphrasing  such  of  these 
paragraphs  as  the  teacher  may  select. 

ABSTRACT  CONCRETE 

1.  A  philosopher  from  the  1.  A  philosopher  has  been 
very  nature  of  his  science  is  not  likened  to  a  blind  man  in  a  dark 
deaUng  with  plain  and  evident  cellar  himting  for  a  black  cat 
matters.  His  surroundings  are  that  is  not  there. — Argumenta- 
vague  and  indistinct,  he  is  try-  tion  and  Debating,  W.  T.  Foster. 
ing  to  ascertain  something  that 

is   indefinite   even   if   it   really 
exists. 

2.  It  is  unwise  to  run  the  risk  2.  A  man  who  steals  a  water- 
of  losing  caste  in  the  eyes  of  melon  is  wicked  but  a  man  who 
other  nations  and  of  meriting  steals  a  green  watermelon  is 
their  accusation  that  we  break  worse;  he  is  a  fool. 

our  solemn  treaty,  to  obtain  a  — Student  debate. 

right  that  is  commercially  dis- 
advantageous to  us. 

— Student  debate. 

3.  We    should     enlarge    our  3.  Milton    used    eight    thou- 


EXERCISES 


323 


vocabularies.  A  man  today  has 
need  of  more  words  than  the 
celebrated  authors  of  past  cen- 
turies because  there  are  many 
more  objects  to  be  described  and 
many  new  ideas  to  be  considered. 


4.  On  the  whole  the  result  of 
the  Civil  war  was  a  benefit  to 
the  South.  The  civilization  of 
the  time  before  the  war  gave 
way  to  a  better  civilization  and  a 
more  universal  prosperity.  Out 
of  defeat  came  a  better  chance 
for  economic  advancement. 

5.  I  am  never  for  an  offensive 
war,  and  if  war  can  come  only 
through  our  initiative,  it  will  not 
begin.  Neither  the  conscious- 
ness of  our  strength,  nor  the 
trust  in  our  alliances  will  pre- 
vent us  from  continuing  with 
our  accustomed  zeal  our  accus- 
tomed efforts  to  keep  peace. 

— Bismarck. 

6.  Inventions  of  wondrous 
analytical  subtlety  have  marked 
epochs  in  the  progress  of  the 
telephone  service,  but  in  an  art 
or  industry  or  system  made  up 
of  many  interdependent  opera- 
tions and  services,  each  new 
idea,  no  matter  how  controlling, 
must  be  adapted  to  what  al- 
ready exists  to  make  it  service- 
able.— American  Tel.  &  Tel.  Co., 
Annual  Report,  1914. 

7.  The  public  speaker  should 
lead  his  audience  to  forget  his 
own  personality.    They  will  not 


sand  words,  Shakespeare  fifteen 
thousand.  We  have  all  the  sub- 
jects to  talk  about  that  these 
early  speakers  had;  and  in 
addition  we  have  bicycles  and 
sciences  and  strikes  and  poUtical 
combinations  and  all  the  compli- 
cated Uving  of  the  modern 
world. — George  Herbert  Palmer. 
4.  The  South  found  her  jewel 
in  the  toad's  head  of  defeat. 

— Henry  Grady. 


5.  Fire  must  be  kindled  by 
some  one  before  it  can  burn,  and 
we  will  not  kindle  it. — Bismarck. 


6.  While  milestones  mark  pro- 
gress made,  steps  make  the 
progress. — American  Tel.  &  Tel. 
Co.,  Annital  Report,  1915. 


7.  What  you   are   speaks   so 

loud  I  cannot  hear  what  you  say. 

— Emerson. 


324 


EXERCISES 


listen  to  him  if  their  attention  to 
what  he  has  to  say  is  distracted 
by  his  manner,  action  or  per- 
sonal appearance. 

8.  The  army  of  the  United 
States  consists  of  70,000  men 
which  is  manifestly  inadequate. 

— Student  argmnent. 

9.  Napoleon  III  excited  the 
attention  of  the  civilized  world. 
His  least  actions  were  treated  as 
matters  of  great  importance 
and  published  by  the  press  of 
every  country. 

10.  It  is  unfortunate  that  the 
custom  of  viewing  the  stage  as 
an  amusement  ever  prevailed; 
for  the  stage  is  an  institution 
higher  and  finer  than  any  amuse- 
ment. But  even  viewing  it  as 
one  of  the  amusements,  no  man 
has  a  right  to  degrade  its  char- 
acter or  impair  its  usefulness. 
If  we  overwork  ourselves  as  a 
community,  let  us  quit  that 
injurious  custom.  The  time  for 
going  to  the  play  is  when  you  are 
well  and  can  appreciate  what  you 
see  and  hear. — William  Winter. 

11.  The  expenditure  for  pen- 
sions to  soldiers  and  sailors  in 
the  United  States  is  enormous  in 
comparison  with  that  of  other 
countries. 


8.  You  can  seat  the  army  of 
the  United  States  comfortably 
in  the  Yale  Bowl. 

— Student  argument. 

9.  Thirty  eager  newspaper 
correspondents  inform  the  world 
that  he  has  frowned  and  every 
electric  wire  quivers  if  he  raises 
his  little  finger. — Victor  Hugo. 

10.  If  we  are  "tired"  and 
"nervous"  we  can  surely  rest 
and  refresh  the  nerves  without 
turning  the  stage  into  a  play 
ground  for  idiots  and  making  the 
theatre  a  hospital  for  victims  of 
dyspepsia. 

Sick  persons  are  in  no  fit  con- 
dition to  comprehend  the  drama, 
and,  even  if  they  were,  the  actor 
is  not  an  apothecary. 

— William  Winter. 


11.  In  1891,  France  paid  for 
military  and  naval  pensions 
$30,000,000;  Germany  $13,000,- 
000;  Austria  $12,245,000;  Rus- 
sia $18,000,000;  England  $25,- 
000,000.  From  but  thirteen 
milhons  in  1866  our  pension  ex- 
penditure has  run  up  to 
$165,000,000  in  this  same  year, 
1891,  a  sum  in  excess  of  the  cost 
of  maintaining  any  of  the  great 
standing  armies. 


EXERCISES  325 

Chapter  XII 
BEAUTY 

I.  Assign  for  class  reading  any  of  the  following:  Toussaint 
L'Ouverture,  Wendell  Phillips;  The  New  South,  Henry  Grady; 
Father  Damien,  R.  L.  Stevenson;  The  XXIII  Psalm;  Speech  on 
Conciliation,  Edmund  Burke.  Let  the  class  then  with  the  texts 
before  them  designate  the  means,  as  suggested  in  this  chapter,  by 
which  beauty  of  style  is  manifested. 

II.  Let  the  students  in  class  criticise  each  other's  work  with 
especial  reference  to  beauty  of  style. 

III.  Have  the  students  bring  into  class  and  read  aloud  pas- 
sages which  they  have  selected  to  illustrate  the  four  principle 
characteristics  of  beauty  of  style. 


INDEX 


Addressing  the  audience,  205 

Admissions  against  interest,  96- 
97 

Admitted  matter  in  conflict  of 
opinions,  4&-47;  when  ex- 
cluded from  consideration,  47 

Against  Capital  Punishment, 
Robespierre,  appendix,  297 

Ambiguity  in  wording  the  ques- 
tion, 21 

Analogy  as  a  form  of  induction, 
103;   false   analogy,    122-123 

Analysis,  10-12;  exercises,  ap- 
pendix, 309 

Appendix:  brief  of  Home  Rule 
question,  257-266;  argument 
on  Home  Rule,  267-295; 
authors'  note  on  brief  and  ar- 
gument, 255-256;  exercises, 
307-324;  Robespierre's  argu- 
ment Against  Capital  Punish- 
ment, 297;  The  Mousetrap 
Quotation,  302 

Argument:  definition,  1;  not 
contentiousness,  2;  purpose  of, 
4;  parts  of,  7;  writing  of, 
Chapter  XIII;  exercises,  ap- 
pendix, 307 

Argumentum  ad  hominem,  125- 
126 

Argumentum  ad  populum,  125- 
126 

Arnold,  Deathbed  of,  cited,   156 

Artificiality,  avoidance  of,  179- 
180 


Assertion,  71 

Authority,  argument  from:  na- 
ture of^  74-75;  test  of,  75-79 

Balance  of  sides  in  a  good  prop- 
osition for  argument,  14-15 

Basis  of  judgment,  common, 
need  of,  18 

Beauty:  Chapter  XII;  the  term, 
165;  how  acquired,  167-168; 
characteristics  of,  168;  purity, 
168-169;  melody,  169-171; 
imagination,  171-176;  exer- 
cises. Appendix,  325 

Begging  the  question,  117-118; 
see  Fallacies 

Brief:  Chapter  V;  value  of,  51- 
53;  definition  of,  53;  distin- 
guished from  outline,  54;  dis- 
tinguished from  speakers' 
notes,  55;  danger  of  following 
the  brief  too  closely  in  writing 
out  the  argument,  182-183 

Briefing,  Rules  for:  need  of 
uniform,  56;  a  good  system  of, 
57-68;  exercises.  Appendix, 
310 

Burden  of  going  forward  dis- 
tinguished from  burden  of 
proof,  22-23 

Burden  of  proof:  in  wording  of 
question,  22-23;  how  to  find, 
23-26;  how  affected  by  au- 
dience, 26-27 

Burke  quoted,  156 


327 


328 


INDEX 


Capability  of  decision,  proposi- 
tion for  argument  must  have, 
17-18 

Causal  relation  or  causation, 
iai-114 

Cause,  false,  123-124 

Circle,  reason  in,  119 

Circumstantial  evidence,  80-82; 
111-112 

Clearness:  Chapter  X;  secured  by 
principles  of  unity,  coherence, 
and  mass,  142;  exercises.  Ap- 
pendix, 319 

Cleveland,  President,  quoted, 
140 

Conciseness  in  wording  the  ques- 
tion, 19-21 

Coherence:  defined,  142-143;  in 
the  whole  composition,  144- 
145;  in  the  paragraph,  148- 
149;  in  the  sentence,  150-151 

Conciseness  as  a  principle  of 
force,  158-161;  defined,  159; 
use  of,  159-160;  182 

Conclusion:  as  part  of  an 
argument,  8-9;  fallacies  of, 
125-128;  writing  the  conclu- 
sion of  the  argument,  196- 
200 

Concreteness  as  a  principle  of 
force,  161-163;  defined,  161- 
162;  appeal  of,  162-163;  value 
of,  182 

Conflicting  or  conflict  of  opin- 
ions, 41-42;  189-190 

Contentiousness,  2-3 

Debating:  Chapter  XV;  danger 
of  mendacity  in,  223-224; 
arguing  against  belief  in,  224- 
226.;  value  of  debating,  226- 


227;  conduct  of  a  debate,  227- 
228;  intercollegiate  debating, 
228-247;  the  question,  229- 
230;  the  coach,  230,  231; 
choice  of  the  speakers,  232- 
233;  need  of  team  work,  233- 
234;  duties  of  coach,  234r-235; 
the  affirmative  case,  235-236; 
first  affirmative  speech,  236- 
237;  the  negative  case,  237- 
240;  method  of  preparing 
speeches,  240-243;  danger  of 
set  speech,  240-241;  rebuttal, 
243-245;  arrangement  of 
speakers,  245-247 

Declaration  of  Independence  aa 
an  argument,  69 

Deductive  reasoning,  100-102; 
see  Reasoning. 

Definition  of  terms:  33-36;  need 
of,  34-35;  artificial,  36;  in  the 
completed  argument,  187 

Definition  or  equivocation,  fal- 
lacy of,  127-128 

DeUvery:  Chapter  XIV;  how  to 
address  the  audience,  205; 
posture,  207-208;  gesture, 
209-212;  mannerisms,  213- 
214;  emphasis,  215;  enuncia- 
tion, 215-217;  pronunciation, 
217-219;  use  of  charts  and 
diagrams,  219-220;  reading  a 
selection,  220 

Direct  evidence,  80-82 

Emphasis  in  delivery,  215 
Emphasis  or  mass  as  a  principle 

of    clearness,     143-153;    eee 

Mass. 
Enthymeme,  102 
Enunciation,  21&-217 


INDEX 


329 


Equivocation,  fallacy  of,  127- 
128 

Everett,  Edward,  cited,  171 

Evidence:  Chapter  VI;  in  law 
and  in  argument,  72-73;  the 
argument  from  authority  as 
evidence,  73-80;  direct  and 
circumstantial  evidence,  80- 
82;  testing  evidence  as  to  con- 
sistency, 83-87;  as  to  source, 
87-94;  kinds  of  evidence  not 
affected  by  bias,  94-98;  exer- 
cises. Appendix,  312 

Exercises:  Appendix;  Chapter  I, 
Argument,  307;  Chapter  II, 
The  Subject,  307;  Chapter  III, 
Explanation,  309;  Chapter  IV, 
Analogy,  309;  Chapter  V, 
Briefing,  310;  Chapter  VI, 
Evidence,  312;  Chapter  VII, 
Reasoning,  314;  Chapter  VIII, 
Fallacies,  316;  Chapter  X, 
Clearness,  319;  Chapter  XI, 
Force,  321;  Chapter  XII, 
Beauty,  325 

Explanation  of  proposition: 
Chapter  III,  need  of,  28;  steps 
in,  28-29;  exercises.  Appendix, 
309 

Extraneous  matter,  42-43 

Fact,  question  of,  15-16 

Fallacies:  Chapter  VIII,  in  the 
premise,  116-119;  of  observa- 
tion, 116-117;  of  begging  the 
question,  117-118;  of  reason- 
ing in  a  circle,  119;  in  the  rea- 
soning process,  118-124;  in  de- 
duction, non  sequitur,  120;  in 
inducting,  hasty  generaliza- 
tion,  121-122;  false  analogy, 


122-123;  mistaken  causal  re- 
lation or  false  cause,  123-124; 
in  the  conclusion,  125-128; 
ignoring  the  question,  125- 
126;  shifting  ground,  126-127; 
definition  or  equivocation, 
127-128;  exercises,  Appendix, 
316 

False  analogy,  122-123 

False  cause,  123-124 

Figures  of  speech,  suggestions 
for  using,  173-176 

Force:  Chapter  XI,  defined,  154; 
ways  of  securing,  155;  repeti- 
tion, 155-158;  conciseness, 
158-161,  182;  concreteness, 
161-163,  182;  exercises.  Ap- 
pendix, 321 

Generahzation,  102;  hasty,  121- 
122 

Genius  and  attention,  163 

Gesture,  209-212 

Good-nature,  an  attribute  of 
persuasion,  133-134 

Good  taste,  an  attribute  of  per- 
suasion, 135-136 

Good  use,  149 

Grady,  Henry  W.,  cited,  177 

Henry,  Patrick,  156 

Hibben,  President,  109,  111-114 

History  of  the  question,  32-33; 
purpose  of,  32;  extent  of,  33, 
186 

Horace,  quoted,  161 

Ignoring  the  question,   125-126 
Imagination  as  a  characteristic 
of    beauty,     171-176;     hack- 
neyed phrases,  173;  figurative 
language,  173-176 


330 


INDEX 


Independence,  Declaration  of, 
as  an  argument,  69 

Inductive  reasoning,  102-114; 
see  Reasoning 

Intercollegiate  debating,  228- 
247;  see  Debating 

Interest,  immediate,  of  ques- 
tion, 29-32;  need  of  statement 
of,  30;  a  natural  starting 
point,  31 

Introduction  to  an  argument,  7, 
183-190 

Issues,  main:  Chapter  IV,  nature 
of,  39-40;  how  found,  40-50 

James,  William,  162 
Judgment,  necessity  of  common 
basis  of,  18 

Legal  evidence,  72-73 

Lincoln:  letter  to  McClellan,  31; 
notes  for  speaking,  55 ;  Gettys- 
burg Address,  140,  181-182; 
remark  about  Grant,  177 

Locke,  154-155 

Main  issues,  Chapter  IV,  see 
Issues 

Mannerisms  of  delivery,  213-214 

Mass:  a  better  term  than  em- 
phasis, 143;  distinguished 
from  force,  143;  of  the  whole 
composition,  144;  of  the  par- 
agraph, 147-148;  of  the  sen- 
tence, 152-153 

Melody,  a  characteristic  of 
beauty,  169-171 

Mistaken  causal  relation,  or 
false  cause,  123-124 

Mousetrap  Quotation,  Appendix, 
302  ' 


Nature,  good,  133-134 
Negative  testimony,  95-96 
Nan  sequitur,  120 

Observation,  fallacy  of,  116-117 

Opening  of  an  argument,  re- 
quirements for  a  good,  183- 
186 

Opinions,  conflict  of  or  conflict- 
ing: nature  of,  41,  187-189; 
method  of  reducing,  42,  189- 
190 

Outline,  use  of,  53-55 

Paragraphs:  unity  of,  145-146; 
mass  or  emphasis  of,  147-148; 
coherence  of,  148-149 

Pasteur  Medal  at  Harvard  Uni- 
versity, 13 

Persuasion:  Chapter  IX,  and 
conviction,  129-130;  use  jus- 
tifiable, 146;  as  affected  by 
character  and  attitude  of  au- 
dience, 131-132;  attained  by 
good  nature  of  speaker,  133- 
134;  tact,  134-135;  good  taste, 
135-136;  sincerity  and  essen- 
tial quality  for,  136-138; 
simplicity,  138-141 

Plan:  need  of  in  argmnent,  51; 
value  of  to  writer,  52;  to 
reader,  52-53 

Policy,  questions  of,  15-16 

Posture   on    platform,    207-208 

Premise,  fallacies  in,  116-119; 
see  Fallacies 

Procuring  of  evidence  must  be 
possible,  17 

Pronunciation,  217-219 

Proof:  the  body  of  an  argument, 
7-8;  nature  of,  69-70;  defini- 


INDEX 


331 


tion  of,  70;  not  assertion,  71; 
writing  of  the  proof  of  an  ar- 
gument, 191-195 

Proposition:  need  of  to  argue, 
12-13;  requirements  of  sub- 
stance in,  14-18;  of  wording, 
18-27 

Purity,  a  characteristic  of  beauty, 
168-169 

Question  begging,  117-118;  see 
Fallacies 

Quotation,  The  Mousetrap,  Ap- 
pendix, 302 

Reading  a  selection  in  a  debate, 
220 

Reasoning:  Chapter  VII,  deduc- 
tive, 100-102;  the  syllogism, 
101;  tests  of  deduction,  101; 
the  enthymeme,  102;  induc- 
tive, 102-114;  generalization, 
102;  analogy,  103;  causal  rela- 
tion, kinds  of,  104-109;  tests 
of,  110-114;  exercises  on  rea- 
soning, Appendix,  314 

Reasoning  in  a  circle,  119;  see 
Fallacies 

Refutation:  in  introduction, 
189-190;  in  the  proof,  193-195 

Repetition  as  a  way  of  securing 
force,  155-158;  nature  of  its 
forcibleness,  157-158;  danger 
of,  158 

Robertson,  Rev.  Frederick  W., 
147-148 

Robespierre,    Against    Capital 
Punishment,  Appendix,  297 

Sentence:  unity  of,  149-150; 
coherence  of,   150-151;   mass 


of,  152-153;  bad  loose,  149; 
periodic,  152 

Shifting  ground,  126-127;  see 
Fallacies 

Simplicity,  a  quality  of  per- 
suasiveness, 138-141;  general 
value   in   argument,    180-182 

Sincerity,  a  quality  of  persua- 
siveness, 136-138 

Speakers'  notes  distinguished 
from  brief  and  outUne,  55;  of 
Lincoln,  55 

Subject  of  an  argiiment:  Chap- 
ter II,  requirements  of  form, 
18-27;  of  substance,  14r-18; 
exercises.  Appendix,  307 

Subjects  for  debate  used  in  the 
Harvard-Y  a  1  e-P  r  i  n  c  e  t  o  n 
series,  249-253 

Suggestions  for  writing  an  argu- 
ment, 201-202 

Syllogisms,  101;   see   Reasoning 

Tact,  an  attribute  of  persua- 
sion, 134—135 

Taste,  good,  an  attribute  of 
persuasion,  135-136 

Testimony,  unbiased,  94;  kinds 
of,  94r-97 

Twain,  Mark,  quoted,  139 

Undesigned     testimony,     94-95 
Unity:    definition,    142;    of    the 

whole  composition,    143-144; 

of  the  paragraph,  145-147;  of 

the  sentence,  149-150 
Use,  good,  149 

Visual  aids,  use  of,  in  debates, 
219-220 

Waived  matter  in  the  conflict  of 
opinions,  44-46 


332 


INDEX 


Webster,  Daniel,  157 

Whole  composition:  unity  of, 
143-144;  coherence  of,  144- 
145;  mass  or  emphasis  of,  144 

Wit,  a  characteristic  of  beauty, 
176-178 

Writing  the  argument:  Chapter 
XIII;  avoidance  of  arti- 
ficiahty,  179-180;  the  value  of 
simpUcity,  180-182;  concrete- 
ness,  182;  conciseness,  182; 
danger  of  following  the  brief 
too  closely,  182-183;  how  to 
write  the  opening  of  an  argu- 
ment, 183-186;  the  history  of 


the  question,  186;  the  defini- 
tion of  terms,  187;  the  confhct 
of  opinions,  187-189;  how  to 
exclude  matter  from  the  con- 
flict of  opinions,  189-190;  how 
to  introduce  the  proof  of  each 
issue,  191-192;  how  to  con- 
clude the  proof  of  each  issue, 
192-193;  how  to  treat  refuta- 
tion, 193-195;  the  desirability 
of  not  writing  the  whole 
argument  at  one  time,  195- 
196;  how  to  write  the  conclu- 
sion, 196-200 


BOOKS    ON    JOURNALISM 
THE  WRITING  OF  NEWS 

By  CHARLES  D.  ROSS 

Assistant  Professor  of  Journalism  in  the  University  of  Missouri 

$1.40  net 

A  practical  manual  every  man  who  wishes  to  write  for  the 
papers  should  have,  and  that  contains  much  of  interest  to  the 
general  reader. 

The  author  was  trained  on  a  newspaper  and  is  now  assist- 
ant professor  of  journalism  in  the  University  of  Missouri. 
His  book  is  equipped  with  helpful  exercises,  shows  how  to 
rewrite  faulty  matter,  is  full  of  practical  examples  of  "  Heads," 
"  Bromides,"  etc. 

The  chapters  include  :  Newspaper  Copy  ;  The  English  of  the 
Newspapers  ;  The  Writer's  Viewpoint  ;  The  Importance  of 
Accuracy  ;  News  Values  ;  Writing  the  Lead  ;  The  Story 
Proper  :  The  Feature  Story  ;  The  Interview  ;  Special  Types 
of  Stories  ;  The  Correspondent  ;  Copy  Reading  ;  Writing  the 
"  Head";  Don'ts  for  the  News  Writer  ;  Newspaper  Bromides. 

MAKING  A  NEWSPAPER 

By  JOHN  L.  GIVEN 

Recently  with  the  New  York  "  Evening  Sun  " 

$1.50  net. 

Some  seventy-five  leading  newspapers  praise  this  book  as 
the  best  detailed  account  of  the  business,  editorial,  reportorial 
and  manufacturing  organization  of  a  metropolitan  journal. 
It  should  be  invaluable  to  those  entering  upon  newspaper 
work  and  a  revelation  to  the  general  reader. 

Anecdotes  and  actual  experiences  add  to  the  interest  and 
value. 

"An  interesting  and  detailed  account  of  newspaper  organization  by 
a  trained  newspaper  ma.n."'—Spring/ieid Republican. 

HENRY     HOLT     AND     COMPANY 

PUBLISHERS  NEW  YORK 


Wilbur  L.  Cross,  Yale  University,  General  Editor 

Addison :    Sir  Roger  de  Coverley  Papers. 

Edited  by  N.  E.  Griffin,  Princeton  University.     30  cents. 
Arnold :   Sohrab  and  Rustum,  and  Other  Poems. 

Edited  by  Walter  S.  Hinckman,  Groton  School.   25  cents. 
Ballads. 

Edited  by  Guido  H.  Stempel,  Indiana  University. 
Browning :    Selections. 

Edited  by  Charles  W.  Hodell,  Goucher  College.    30  cents. 
Bunyan:   Pilgrim's  Progress,  Part  I. 

Edited  by  John  H.  Gardiner.    40  cents. 
Burke:    On  Conciliation. 

Edited  by  D.  V.  Thompson,  Lawrenceville  School.    25  cents. 
Byron:    Childe  Harold,  and  Other  Poems. 

Edited  by  Hardin  Craig,  University  of  Minnesota.  35  cents. 
Carlyle:    Essay  on  Burns. 

Edited  by  Sophie  C.  Hart,  Wellesley  College.    25  cents. 
Defoe :    Robinson  Crusoe. 

Edited  by  Wilbur  L.  Cross,  Yale  University.    45  cents. 
Dickens:   Tale  of  Two  Cities. 

Edited  by  E.  H.  Kemper  McComb,  Manual  Training  High 

School,  Indianapolis,  Ind.     45  cents. 
Eliot:   Silas  Marner. 

Edited   by   Ellen    E.    Garrigues,   De   Witt   Clinton   High 

New  York  City.    30  cents. 
English  Lyrics  from  Dryden  to  Burns. 

Edited  by  Morris  W.  Croll,  Princeton  University.    30  cents. 
Essays. 

Edited  by  C.  T.  Winchester,  Wesleyan  University.   45  cents. 
Franklin :    Autobiography. 

Edited  by  F.  W.  Pine,  Gilman  Country  School,  Baltimore. 

35  cents. 
Hughes:   Tom  Brown's  School  Days. 

Edited  by  W.  H.  Lillard,  Phillips  Andover  Academy.  45  cts. 
Huxley :    Selections. 

Edited  by  C.  Alphonso  Smith,  University  of  Virginia.  35  cts. 
Irving:   Sketch  Book. 

Edited  by  Arthur  W.  Leonard,  Phillips  Academy,  Andover, 

Mass.     40  cents. 
Macaulay:  Life  of  Johnson. 

Edited  by  C.  N.  Greenough,  Harvard  University.    25  cents. 
Macaulay:  Lord  Clive  and  Warren  Hastings. 

Edited  by  F.  E.  Pierce,  Yale  University,  and  Samuel  Thur- 

ber,  Jr.,  Technical  High  School,  Newton,  Mass.    35  cents. 


lEttgliali  SraMnga  far  ^t\:iaaU— Continued 

Macaulay:    Two  Speeches  on  Copyright,  with  Lincoln: 

Speech  at   Cooper  Institute.     Edited  by  James   F.  Hosic, 

Chicago  Teachers  College.    30  cents. 
Milton:    L' Allegro,  II  Penseroso,  Comus,  Lycidas. 

Edited  by  M.  W.  Sampson,  Cornell  University.     25  cents. 
Old  Testament  Narratives. 

Edited  by  G.  H.  Nettleton,  Yale  University.    40  cents. 
Scott:    Quentin  Durward. 

Edited  by  Thomas  H.  Briggs.    45  cents. 
Scott:   Ivanhoe. 

Edited   by   Alfred   A.   May,   High   School  of   Commerce, 

New  York  City.     45  cents. 
Scott :  Lady  of  the  Lake. 

Edited    by    Alfred    M.    Hitchcock,    Public    High    School, 

Hartford,  Conn.     60  cents. 
Shakespeare:    Macbeth. 

Edited   by    F.   E.    Schelling,   University  of   Pennsylvania. 

25  cents. 
Shakespeare:    Merchant  of  Venice. 

Edited  by  Frederick  E.  Pierce,  Yale  University.    25  cents. 
Shakespeare:   Julius  Caesar. 

Edited  by  A.  H.  Thorndike,  Columbia  University.    25  cents. 
Shakespeare :   As  You  Like  It. 

Edited  by  John   W.   Cunliffe,   Columbia  University,  and 

George  Roy  Elliott,  Bowdoin  College.     25  cents. 
Shakespeare :    Hamlet. 

Edited  by  John  L.  Lowes,  Washington  University.  25  cents. 

Short  Stories. 

Edited  by  Stuart  P.  Sherman,  University  of  Illinois.  35  cts. 
Stevenson:  Inland  Voyage  and  Travels  with  a  Donkey. 

Edited  by  Edward  Mims,  Vanderbilt  University.    35  cents. 
Stevenson:  Treasure  Island. 

Edited  by  S.  P.  Sherman,  University  of  Illinois.    30  cents. 
Tennyson:    Idylls  of  the  King. 

Edited  by  John  Erskine,  Columbia  University.     30  cents. 
Washington:     Farewell   Address,    with   Webster:     First 

Bunker  Hill  Oration.   Edited  by  William  E.  Simonds,  Knox 

College,  Galesburg,  111.     25  cents. 
Wordsworth:    Selections.     Also  from  Coleridge,  Shelley 

and    Keats.     Edited   by   James    W.    Linn,   University   of 

Chicago.     35  cents. 

HENRY  HOLT  AND  COMPANY,  ^"iV'^i^ 


b 


^ 


hy 


^'% 


8 

TJDNVSOl'^ 


hvwu  miuu 


i?  1    xr-^  ^ 


%«3A!M(11P>>         '%OJnV>JO'^       '^il/OJIlVD-JO^ 


\J 


% 


UDNVSOl'^ 


t 


i  5 


% 


•UBRARYO^      ^ 


S   1/ 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

305  De  Neve  Drive  -  Parking  Lot  17  •  Box  951388 

LOS  ANGELES,  CALIFORNIA  90095-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


OCT  062008 


§1 


'^^/smrnv^ 


AA    000  668  404 


^^omm-^:^      ''oxHnmi^        <(5u3nvsoi^ 


o 


JNIVER% 


^i-mmo/: 


hoiim-i^'^ 


^OFCAIIFOft^ 


^4 


aweunivers^a 


o 
^5MEUNIVEW;/^ 


^J^30NV$0^^ 


^lOS-ANCEl^^ 
o 


%a3AIN(l-3WV 


^ios^CEi£;r^ 


so 

> 

%a3AiNn-3Viv^ 


^OFCAUfORi^ 


^lOSANCElfX;> 
p 


^UBRARYQ^      ^-lIBRARYOr, 


%aaAlN(13V\V^         %OJI1V3JO'^      '^<!/OJI1VOJO'*^ 


,^WEUNIVERS/A 

I-    -- 

■  "     'J  O 


^lOSANCEl^^        ^OFCAUFORj^      ^.OFCAllFOftj^ 


•^/S«AINrt3WV 


,\WEUNIVER% 


^^Aaviiaii-i^      >&Aav}i8n-^^        <rii30Nvsoi^ 


^lllBRARYQ^  ^^WEUNIVER%       ^lOSANCEl£r^ 


1  irr 


\  cxT^    M 


% 


^lUBRARYO/ 


